Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

Ending the fentanyl crisis won’t be easy. The U.S. has an addiction problem that spans decades – long predating the rise of fentanyl – and countless attempts to regulate, legislate and incarcerate have done little to reduce drug consumption. Credit: Shutterstock

By External Source
Feb 5 2025 (IPS)

Americans consume more illicit drugs per capita than anyone else in the world; about 6% of the U.S. population uses them regularly.
One such drug, fentanyl – a synthetic opioid that’s 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine – is the leading reason U.S. overdose deaths have surged in recent years. While the rate of fentanyl overdose deaths has dipped a bit recently, it’s still vastly higher than it was just five years ago.

Ending the fentanyl crisis won’t be easy. The U.S. has an addiction problem that spans decades – long predating the rise of fentanyl – and countless attempts to regulate, legislate and incarcerate have done little to reduce drug consumption. Meanwhile, the opioid crisis alone costs Americans tens of billions of dollars each year.

With past policies having failed to curb fentanyl deaths, President Donald Trump is turning to another tool to fight America’s drug problem: trade policy.

During his presidential campaign, Trump pledged to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico if they didn’t halt the flow of drugs across U.S. borders, and on China if it didn’t do more to crack down on the production of chemicals used to make fentanyl. Trump reiterated his plan on his first day back in office, and on Feb. 1, he made good on that threat, imposing tariffs on all three counties and citing fentanyl as a key reason.

Speaking as a professor who studies social policy, I think both fentanyl and the proposed import taxes represent significant threats to the U.S. While the human toll of fentanyl is undeniable, the real question is whether tariffs will work – or worsen what’s already a crisis.

 

Fentanyl: The ‘single greatest challenge’

In 2021, more than 107,000 Americans died from overdoses – the most ever recorded – and nearly seven out of 10 deaths involved fentanyl or similar synthetic opioids. In 2022, fentanyl was killing an average of 200 people each day. And while fentanyl deaths declined slightly in 2023, nearly 75,000 Americans still died from synthetic opioids that year. In March of that year – the most recent for which full-year data on overdose deaths is available – the then-secretary of homeland security declared fentanyl to be “the single greatest challenge we face as a country.”

But history shows that government efforts to curb drug use often have little success.

The first real attempt to regulate drugs in the U.S. occurred in 1890, when, amid rampant drug abuse, Congress enacted a law taxing morphine and opium. In the years that followed, cocaine use skyrocketed, rising 700% between 1890 and 1902. Cocaine was so popular, it was even found in drinks such as Coca-Cola, from which it got its name.

This was followed by a 1909 act banning the smoking of opium, and, in 1937, the “Marihuana Tax Act.” The most comprehensive package of laws was instituted with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which classified drugs into five categories based on their medical uses and potential for abuse or dependence. A year later, then-President Richard Nixon launched the “War on Drugs” and declared drug abuse as “public enemy No. 1.” And in 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, directing US$1.7 billion for drug enforcement and control.

 

President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “Public enemy No. 1” at this 1971 press conference.

 

These policies have generally failed to curb drug supply and use, while also causing significant harm to people and communities of color. For example, between 1980 and 1997, the number of incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses went from 50,000 to 400,000. But these policies hardly put a dent in consumption. The share of high school seniors using drugs dipped only slightly over the same period, from 65% in 1980 to 58% in 1997.

In short, past U.S. efforts to reduce illegal drug use haven’t been especially effective. Now, it looks like the U.S. is shifting toward using tariffs – but research suggests that those will not lead to better outcomes either, and could actually cause considerable harm.

 

Why tariffs won’t work

America’s experiments with tariffs can be traced back to the founding era with the passage of the Tariff Act of 1789. This long history has shown that tariffs, industrial subsidies and protectionist policies don’t do much to stimulate broad economic growth at home – but they raise prices for consumers and can even lead to global economic instability. History also shows that tariffs don’t work especially well as negotiating tools, failing to effect significant policy changes in target countries. Economists generally agree that the costs of tariffs outweigh the benefits.

Over the course of Trump’s first term, the average effective tariff rate on Chinese imports went from 3% to 11%. But while imports from China fell slightly, the overall trade relationship didn’t change much: China remains the second-largest supplier of goods to the U.S.

The tariffs did have some benefit – for Vietnam and other nearby countries with relatively low labor costs. Essentially, the tariffs on China caused production to shift, with global companies investing billions of dollars in competitor nations.

This isn’t the first time Trump has used trade policy to pressure China on fentanyl – he did so in his first term. But while China made some policy changes in response, such as adding fentanyl to its controlled substances list in 2019, fentanyl deaths in the U.S. continued to rise. Currently, China still ranks as the No. 1 producer of fentanyl precursors, or chemicals used to produce illicit fentanyl. And there are others in the business: India, over that same period, has become a major producer of fentanyl.

 

A question of supply and demand

Drugs have been pervasive throughout U.S. history. And when you investigate this history and look at how other nations are dealing with this problem rather than criminalization, the Swiss and French have approached it as an addiction problem that could be treated. They realized that demand is what fuels the illicit market. And as any economist will tell you, supply will find a way if you don’t limit the demand. That’s why treatment works and bans don’t.

The U.S. government’s ability to control the production of these drugs is limited at best. The problem is that new chemical products will continually be produced. Essentially, failure to restrict demand only places bandages on hemorrhaging wounds. What the U.S. needs is a more systematic approach to deal with the demand that’s fueling the drug crisis.

This article was updated to include details of the tariffs once they were imposed.

Rodney Coates, Professor of Critical Race and Ethnic Studies, Miami University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Pakistani journalists speak out about cybercrimes law from left to right Hamid Mir, Munazza Siddiqui and Umar Cheema. Credits: Jang News, and TikTok

By Zofeen Ebrahim
KARACHI, Feb 5 2025 (IPS)

“I may not be able to continue hosting my show because the content I put up will most certainly land me in prison,” said senior correspondent Azaz Syed who works for a private TV channel, but who also has his own private online digital channel. He was referring to the recent amendment in the already existing cybercrime law, terming it a “wild” law which has been instituted to grapple with fake news among other online harms.

The new version—Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025—passed hurriedly, within a week, in both the houses without debate, and signed into a law by President Asif Ali Zardari on January 29, has triggered nationwide protests by the country’s media personnel.

“They have taken away my right to freedom of expression,” Syed told IPS.

“I fail to understand the uproar among journalists working in electronic media. They already have PEMRA, [the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority] which is responsible for facilitating and regulating private electronic media,” said Minister for Information and Broadcasting Atta­ullah Tarar. “This law is to regulate the social media and countries across the world have some codes or standards under which social media operate; but there was none in our country.”

He said the existing authority, which is the Federal Investigation Authority, that looked into cybercrimes seemed ill-equipped to handle the expanding nature of online crimes taking place—harassment, pornography, national security threats, spreading economic uncertainty; just look at the conviction rate, which is dismal,” he defended the amendment.

Tarar’s reference to the “uproar” stems from TV journalists, like Syed, who have gigs on online platforms and fear the restrictions on content imposed by PECA.

For the past two years, Syed has been hosting a popular show on YouTube called Talk Shock, focusing on sensitive topics like the Pakistan army, intelligence agencies, blasphemy laws, persecution of Ahmadis, and forced conversions of Hindu girls. He described it as a passion project addressing issues close to his heart, despite potential disapproval from authorities. His show has gained over eight million viewers and 174,000 followers, also providing him with extra income.

Hamid Mir, host of Capital Talk, one of the oldest and highest-rated political talk shows, launched his digital TV channel on YouTube after being banned from TV in 2021 (he had already been banned twice, in 2007 by military dictator Pervez Musharraf  and in 2008 by the ruling Pakistan People’s Party) for  speaking against the country’s powerful military for persecuting journalists. “I share my opinions there when I am unable to on the channel that I’m employed in. Having your own platform is liberating,” he told IPS. He has 263,000 viewers.

Azaz Syed, who has his digital TV programme on YouTube called Talk Shock. Credit: Azaz Syed

Mir’s greater worry though is the possibility of losing his voice on X, where he connects with over eight million followers. “If I can’t speak my mind, it will have a profound impact on me,” he said.

But even those journalists who otherwise feel social media is being misused find the law distasteful.

“I have zero tolerance for fake news, and am all for regulating the beast that social media has become, but not this way, certainly” said senior investigative journalist, Umar Cheema, terming it a “third class” law.

The law was originally passed in 2016, by the same ruling party that has brought the current amendments – the Pakistan Muslim League-N. It had been met with much criticism even then.

“The reason for the need for the law given back in 2016 was to counter hate speech, terrorist content and harassment of women—this time the ruse is fake news,” said Farieha Aziz’s co-founder of Bolo Bhi, an advocacy forum for digital rights. The suspicion and criticism against the law now and then is the same—the government is using this law to “stifle political dissent and rein in freedom of expression” she said.

The amendment to the law, criminalises fake news and its dissemination with a prison term of up to three years and a fine of up to Rs 2 million (about USD 7,200).

But, pointed out Aziz, the concern went beyond just the penalties associated with the amendment to the law—it is the “potential for misuse” in the process of determining what constitutes fake news. “People will be reluctant to share or even discuss information out of fear that it might be deemed false or harmful, leading to criminal charges,” she explained, adding the definition of fake news was vague and broad. “They have created a vagueness through the use of language taken from the anti-terrorism act, around the offence,” she pointed out.

“The government operates in grey areas and likes to keep people in a state of confusion,” agreed Cheema.

Moreover, pointed out, Munazza Siddiqui, senior producer on a private TV channel: “The law is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental right to freedom, a core principle enshrined in our Constitution.” She uses TikTok, a platform predominantly used for putting up entertaining content, for disseminating news and opinions. “It’s popular with young people but works superbly for me as they are my audience. The millennials and Gen Z want to stay informed about the world around them, but they lack the patience to sit through long articles or watch lengthy news segments on TV. I provide them with both in just a minute or so!”

However, Siddiqui acknowledged that her vlogging might be impacted. With the sword of Damocles hanging over her, in the form of the newly revised cyber law, she said, “We already navigate a space of self-censorship, and now there’s an added layer of fear.”

The law establishes four bodies—the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority, the Social Media Complaints Council, the Social Media Protection Tribunal, and the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency—concentrating significant power. Aziz warned that these bodies, appointed by the federal government, could lack independence, creating potential conflicts of interest and undermining fairness and accountability.

“And the window of appeal has also been closed as I can only go to the Supreme Court of Pakistan,” said Azaz, which was an expensive route to prove your innocence.

Although the 2016 cybercrime law was already considered draconian by experts, the reason to tweak it further, explained Cheema, was that “the nature and use of social media has changed and become more sophisticated since then, adding that the media needed to share the blame for the recent shape the law has taken.

Cheema said the media did not establish a code of conduct for responsible social media use which led the government to step in, using the fake news excuse to silence dissenting voices. He emphasized that while media can express opinions, facts must be solid, and journalists should hold each other accountable. “Yet, we don’t even call out our colleagues for lying.”

Finding the nationwide protest hypocritical, he questioned, “The bill wasn’t a surprise—everyone knew it was being revised. Why didn’t anyone speak up then? Where were the protests and revisions when it was in the National Assembly and Senate? There was silence, and now, after it’s law, they’re out on the streets.”

“The law is in place,” Tarrar said with finality. However, he added: “The rules are still being worked out, and we’re open to media input to refine them.”

“Recalling the law may be tough,” agreed Cheema, but if the media is concerned, “They can come up with their own system; no one is stopping them; but that’s the real test for our community.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Malala: ‘Honest Conversations on Girls’ Education Start by Exposing the Worst Violations’
• Mahrang Baloch—Feted Worldwide, Persecuted at Home
• Lahore’s Dangerous Smog: Where Disease and Death Stalk

Credit: WMO/Karolin Eichier. UN News

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Feb 5 2025 (IPS)

In less than two weeks in office, Trump issued scores of reckless executive orders that ironically will gravely undermine rather than enhance his “America First” agenda and America’s global leadership.

Millions of Americans expected Trump to go rogue once he reassumed the presidency, but much fewer expected him to issue scores of reckless and damaging executive orders so swiftly.

Pulling the US out of several United Nations agencies and threatening to take over the Panama Canal and acquire by force, if necessary, Denmark’s autonomous territory Greenland are some of the most outrageous plans that would severely undermine his “America First” agenda instead of serving its best interests globally and domestically.

It is hard to imagine what will happen to America in a year or two if Congressional Republicans don’t wake up and prevent him from pursuing this perilous agenda. They can put America first only by maintaining global involvement, exerting leadership, and having a say at the table instead of relinquishing its role and responsibility to Russia and China, who would happily jump at every opportunity to undermine America’s national interest.

What Trump fails to grasp is that the UN, despite its inflated bureaucracy and the failure of some of its agencies to adapt to changing global circumstances, still plays a critical role in international affairs, where the US has taken the lead and from which the US directly benefited.

Moreover, Trump and his benighted advisors appear oblivious to the importance of the UN as the only international organization that endeavors, among other things, to maintain international peace and security, protect human rights, promote international cooperation, and provide badly needed humanitarian assistance.

Indeed, despite its inadequacies in various areas, the UN remains indispensable. Trump, ‘the fixer,’ should help fix various agencies’ inadequacies, not by defunding their essential work but by taking the lead and working with other countries to make these agencies proficient and effective. This certainly is in the best interest of the US and only complements his America First agenda.

Several UN agencies are targeted for defunding because Trump broadly accuses them of corruption and resource waste. Again, it is inexplicable how these agencies, regardless of their shortcomings, are targeted for defunding when they provide critical services that the global community needs.

The World Health Organization (WHO), founded in 1948, protects global health. Among many of its critically important functions, WHO anticipates and responds to global health emergencies, including worldwide pandemics like COVID-19.

It also works to eliminate contagious diseases, having eradicated smallpox in 1980. Moreover, the organization establishes international health standards and monitors global health trends through research and data collection to steer evidence-based health policy.

How on earth would defunding it serve the notion of America first if the US will have no say in its operation? Diseases don’t stay neatly contained within borders, and leaving the world’s largest collaborative public health body will leave the US the last to know when deadly contagions are spreading.

The UN Human Rights Council is an intergovernmental body responsible for promoting and protecting global human rights. The US withdrew in June 2018 under Trump but announced a re-engagement in 2021 under Biden. The US has had a complicated relationship with this body under various presidents, mainly due to US accusations that the body has been and still is anti-Israel.

In addition, some member states in this agency are committing human rights violations in their own countries, which undermines their credibility as the guardian of human rights. Again, human rights are sacrosanct; any contribution to guarding them is needed.

The US, which has championed human rights, should always be at the forefront and address what’s wrong with this important agency rather than defunding it and letting China and Russia influence its focus and direction.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is another agency Trump wants to punish. This indispensable agency seeks to bring peace through international cooperation in education, science, and culture and protects the world’s physical and intangible heritage.

Here again, the US withdrew from UNESCO under Trump in 2019, primarily citing the organization’s alleged anti-Israel bias but also because of mounting arrears and the need for fundamental reforms.

The US rejoined in 2023 under Biden because he recognized its importance, which made up for its deficiencies. Trump’s withdrawal from this agency does not serve his America First agenda, especially when the US’ concerns and interests are ignored, and its contribution is no longer sought out.

The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) provides assistance and protection for registered Palestinian refugees across the Middle East. Trump cut funding in 2018; Biden restored it in 2021, but Congress passed a one-year ban on UNRWA funding until March 25, 2025.

There is no doubt that this nearly eight-decades-old organization is heavy on bureaucracy and short on efficiency, and a small number of its operatives in Gaza were found guilty of aiding Hamas in its attack against Israel. Nevertheless, it still renders essential services, which, at present, are more needed than ever.

Yes, significant reorganization and streamlining of its operation is absolutely necessary, but that cannot be fixed without the US’ direct involvement. By abandoning UNRWA, the US is abdicating its leadership role in finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Indeed, many involved in the process have explicitly said that, and if anything, now that the war in Gaza is still raging and the Palestinian refugees are in a dire situation, American leadership is needed more than ever before.

The Paris Agreement, adopted in December 2015, aims to limit global temperature increases to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Developed countries are asked to provide financial assistance to less developed ones to meet climate goals.

Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement in his first term and is doing it again. The belief of most Republicans that there is no such thing as climate change, against the overwhelming evidence, is nothing short of a travesty.

But then, leave it to the willfully ignorant to dismiss the unprecedented storms, hurricanes, fires, rising sea levels, and temperature because they refuse to see reality. Sadly, withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is also tied to Trump’s desire to expand US fossil fuel production, which has a significant adverse environmental impact on the US just as much, if not more, than other countries.

Territorial ambition

Not only Democrats but also many of Trump’s supporters are baffled by his arbitrary decision to take another country’s territory by force if he “has to,” such as Greenland and the Panama Canal, which is outrageous to even think about. Is there one single sane Trump advisor who can tell him that what he is thinking is a gross violation of international law, to unilaterally decide to take over any land that belongs to other countries?

In addition, it is terrifying other countries, creating a dreadful feeling about what the United States represents and the harm it can inflict at this point on other states. To suggest that the US can unilaterally take land from a UN member state, or worse yet, in the case of Greenland, a NATO member state is nothing short of folly—to take by force land from one’s allies.

The US is committed to upholding territorial integrity, and to think that Trump can just take over the Panama Canal and invade Denmark’s territory is the highest of absurdity.

Sadly, with the new Trump administration entering a second term, not only does the UN face an exceptionally hostile White House, but even many of the US’ friends and allies are bewildered and greatly concerned about what he might do next. They fear that nothing good will come out of this Trump administration and are bracing for the worst.

Trump must remember that America First is best served when America is respected, not feared.

Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Credit: Hadynya/iStock by Getty Images via International Monetary Fund (IMF)

By Constant Lonkeng
PORTO-NOVO, Benin, Feb 4 2025 (IPS)

Benin faced a number of negative spillovers in 2022: a deteriorating regional security situation at its northern border, the lingering scars of COVID-19, and higher living costs amid the war in Ukraine.

To help counter those headwinds, the country tapped IMF support, including a $650 million blended Extended Fund Facility (EFF) and Extended Credit Facility (ECF) arrangement, complemented by a $200 million Resilience and Sustainability Facility (RSF) in 2023.

Development partners’ confidence in the country’s reform program has been reflected in budget support consistently exceeding expectations. Moreover, Benin was among the first countries to re-access the international capital market last year, following a two-year hiatus, with several sovereign credit rating upgrades in recent years.

Despite challenges, there are promising signs of economic transformation. Among other achievements, growth has been strong, fiscal adjustment is proceeding while allowing for a significant increase in social spending, and efforts to strengthen governance are gaining ground.

Following the combined Fifth Review of the ongoing EFF/ECF arrangement and Second Review of the RSF, IMF Country Focus discussed the country’s economic performance with Romuald Wadagni, Senior Minister of State of Economy and Finance for Benin, and Constant Lonkeng, IMF Mission Chief for Benin.

How is the current reform program affecting the daily lives of Beninese people?

Finance Minister Wadagni: First and foremost, our ongoing reform program has allowed us to navigate an episode of severe and repeated shocks, with technical and financial support from our development partners. As a result, our economy has shown remarkable resilience, with growth averaging more than 6.5 percent in recent years.

Economic resilience is helping harness the potential of Benin’s people. A key focus of our reform program is enhancing human capital, as articulated under our people-centric Government Action Program (PAG 2021–26).

Our Integrated School Feeding Program currently provides free meals to students in 95 percent of elementary schools in rural areas (more than 1.3 million children), with full coverage targeted this year. Lower education is now tuition-free for girls across all of Benin’s 77 communes (estimated 2 million girls), with an ongoing pilot to extend to upper secondary school.

We are also putting emphasis on technical education and vocational training to prepare our large youth population to seize job opportunities in high value-added activities.

More broadly, our flagship Insurance for Human Capital Enhancement (ARCH) seeks to foster social resilience through various programs including micro-credits, access to healthcare, and pensions. The social registry—established early on under the EFF/ECF with World Bank technical support—is an essential tool for targeting our support to the most vulnerable.

How has IMF engagement supported the authorities’ policy agenda?

IMF Mission Chief Lonkeng: One key design consideration of Benin’s IMF-supported program was balancing financing and fiscal adjustment in a shock-prone environment. Considering Benin’s established track record in macroeconomic management, we opted for a flexible design—a vote of confidence from the IMF.

Frontloaded financing supported the country’s appropriately strong counter-cyclical policy response to severe shocks—the IMF disbursed more than 40 percent of the total financing envelope of about 400 percent of Benin’s quota in the first 6 months of the 42-month program to smooth out fiscal adjustment. The EFF/ECF was subsequently complemented by an RSF (120 percent of Benin’s quota) to help enhance the country’s overall socio-economic resilience.

The authorities have since been re-building policy space, with domestic revenue mobilization being a key part of this effort and, more broadly, the cornerstone of the authorities’ reform program. A frontloaded tax policy reform under the program complemented efforts to digitalize the tax system to boost revenue collection. As the chart shows, Benin’s tax-to-GDP ratio increased by more than 2 percentage points during 2022–24, far exceeding the average improvement of other countries in this timeframe.

There are promising signs of economic transformation. How are you achieving this and what lessons did you learn along the way?

Finance Minister Wadagni: We first conducted an in-depth diagnostic of our economic and financial situation about a decade ago. We then embarked on a first wave of reforms to lay the foundations for structural transformation, cognizant of the fact that sound public finances, reliable energy, and infrastructure—including digital—are key prerequisites for sustained economic expansion.

The ongoing second wave of reforms seek to consolidate our initial achievements and climb up value chains by processing commodities locally. The Glo-Djigbé Industrial Zone—which is dedicated to the local transformation of agricultural products including cotton, cashews, and soybeans—plays a strategic role in this regard.

We intend to further develop the zone and, more broadly, pursue the structural transformation of our economy, including through continued modernization and enhanced resilience of agriculture. We will also step up investment in unlocking Benin’s tourism potential and modernizing the Port of Cotonou.

In doing all of the above, we will expand the social safety nets to reach as many vulnerable people as possible. A key lesson from our experience so far is that sound governance is critical in economic transformation.

Benin innovated with the issuance of the first Social Development Goal (SDG) bond in the region – and is now extending this framework to catalyze private climate finance. Can you elaborate?

Finance Minister Wadagni: We developed an SDG bond framework around the country’s social and climate priorities as an integral part of our development finance strategy. The framework was initially used to issue a €500 million SDG bond in 2021, a first in the region.

It has since facilitated the financing of key social and energy transition projects. We intend to leverage the SDG bond framework to catalyze financing for climate change adaptation, resilient agriculture, sustainable ecosystem management, and the energy transition.

Relatedly, we secured climate financing pledges from our partners during the recent COP29, following the climate finance roundtable that we co-convened in Cotonou with the IMF and the World Bank.

What has been the key to program engagement in your view, and what do you see as the main challenges ahead?

IMF Mission Chief Lonkeng: First and foremost, program ownership has been key. Benin has an established tradition of public consultation around the country’s reform agenda—under the National Development Plan and the Government Action Program. The Fund-supported program therefore had a solid homegrown foundation to build on.

Going forward, continued expansion of the tax base, drawing on the country’s recently developed medium-term revenue strategy, would help fund Benin’s large development needs (the country’s median age is 18), and improve the country’s capacity to carry debt and preserve debt sustainability.

On the structural front, a continued move away from the traditional transit-centered growth model—supported by a balanced social contract—would foster private sector job creation in higher value-added activities for the large youth population.

Enhancing resilience to climate change and maintaining the digitalization drive would also support overall socio-economic resilience in the long-term. All of this would help raise the living standards of the Beninese in a sustained and inclusive manner.

Constant Lonkeng is IMF Mission Chief for Benin

Source: IMF

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

The United Nations Security Council met on December 12, 2024 to discuss the deteriorating humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 4 2025 (IPS)

The humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan has deteriorated significantly since the 2021 Taliban Offensive, an insurgency that resulted in the Taliban’s reclamation of power and the fall of the nation’s republic. In 2024, the Taliban issued further restrictions on human rights in Afghanistan, particularly for women and girls. These restrictions caused the country to enter a state of economic emergency. This, compounded with heightened insecurity and limited access to basic services, has left over 23 million people in dire need of humanitarian assistance.

Since 2021, the military group began coordinating a series of restrictive measures that significantly limited physical autonomy, access to education and freedom of expression, especially for women and girls. It is believed that women are currently unable to enter public spaces or hold jobs across multiple sectors.

On January 23, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for two high-ranking Taliban leaders, Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada and Supreme Court Chief Justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani, citing crimes of gender-based persecution. “These applications recognise that Afghan women and girls as well as the LGBTQI+ community are facing an unprecedented, unconscionable and ongoing persecution by the Taliban,” said ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan. He added that violations of international humanitarian law subjected to dissenters have been documented.

According to the arrest warrant, opposition to the Taliban’s statutes have been “brutally repressed” through murder, torture, imprisonment, sexual violence, and enforced disappearance. The ICC has indicated that it remains dedicated to analyzing future impunities perpetrated by the Taliban.

On January 16, Human Rights Watch (HRW) provided examples of the multifaceted humanitarian crisis that arose from the Taliban’s restrictions against women. According to the report, the Taliban’s edicts on women’s employment and freedom of movement have severely impeded their ability to receive access to healthcare. Additionally, Afghanistan’s healthcare system has been significantly damaged from an absence of female workers.

“The loss of foreign development aid and Taliban rights violations have caused a catastrophic health crisis in Afghanistan that is disproportionately harming women and girls,” said Fereshta Abbasi, a researcher of Afghanistan at HRW. “The Taliban have severely obstructed women from providing or accessing health care, while the cost of treatment and medicine has put care out of reach for many Afghans.”

According to a study conducted by the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (RWI) titled Violation of Human and Women’s Rights by the Taliban in Afghanistan: The Taliban’s Takeover and its Consequences, the extensive restrictions on the autonomy of women and girls will yield severe economic and social consequences for Afghanistan.

Currently, approximately 3 million girls in Afghanistan have been deprived of education beyond sixth grade since 2021. It is estimated that the bans on women’s education and employment will cost the Afghan economy approximately 5.4 billion dollars. Furthermore, average wages increase by roughly 3.9 percent for each year that girls are in school. Afghanistan is projected to suffer intensified financial losses in the coming years.

The United Nations (UN) states that the exclusion of women and girls from the workforce and education greatly amplifies protection risks. Poverty has also been reported as a consequence of these edicts. According to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, restricting the role of women in public affairs “exacerbates poverty and hampers efforts to build a stable and resilient society”.

HRW states Afghanistan’s worsening economic crisis has facilitated extreme living conditions for approximately 23.7 million people, including 9.2 million children. It is estimated that roughly 14.7 million people are facing food insecurity, with 2.9 million at emergency levels of hunger. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) estimates that 3.9 million children between the ages of 6 to 59 months are projected to suffer from acute malnutrition and desperately require humanitarian intervention.

Additionally, 48 percent of the population live below the poverty line. Basic services such as access to clean water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), are critically underfunded, with 8.4 million people lacking access to safe drinking water and 4.3 million without latrines.

Sufficient aid responses have not been implemented due to the vast scale of unexploded ordnance which has restricted mobility. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), explosive remnants of war are the leading cause of death among Afghan children. From October to December 2024, there were 47 child casualties as a result of unexploded ordnance. Ongoing violence and the presence of explosive munitions near schools also negatively impact access to basic services.

Despite the persistence of these compounding crises in Afghanistan, humanitarian organizations remain dedicated to providing life-saving assistance wherever they can. Last year, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) launched the 2025 Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan for Afghanistan, requesting 2.4 billion USD to support these efforts. In 2025, aid groups aim to target approximately 16.8 million people, assisting them with access to food, shelter, healthcare, education, WASH services, and all other forms of multisectoral support.

However, the efficacy of aid services going forward is in a state of uncertainty due to President Trump’s new measures to freeze foreign aid. Over the past 24 years, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided Afghanistan with over 109 billion USD in aid, with 746 million being allotted to Afghanistan in 2024 alone. Funding cuts like this are projected to have disastrous effects on humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan going forward.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

In Greenland, the melting of ice sheets is accelerating. Credit: WMO/Karolin Eichier / UN News

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 4 2025 (IPS)

US President Donald Trump’s ominous threat to take over the Panama Canal and Greenland sets the stage for a new political battle with the United Nations.

But judging by UN’s track record of failures—including the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine — the world body may lose again while battling a veto-wielding superpower.

Kul Gautam, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General and Deputy Executive Director of the UN children’s fund UNICEF, told IPS Donald Trump’s threat to buy or take over Greenland, the autonomous territory of Denmark, and to take back the Panama Canal “by military force, if necessary”, harks back to the bygone era of the 18th and 19th-century world of lawless, imperial, and colonial expansion.

“It should be seen in the context of Trump’s grandiose announcement to pursue America’s “Manifest Destiny” that was once invoked as the divinely ordained right of the United States to expand its borders to the Pacific Ocean and beyond.”

Such imperial ambition appeals to Trump’s “America First” MAGA supporters but is clearly illegal and in defiance of the UN Charter and a complete violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of UN member states, he pointed out.

“Given Trump’s hubris, erratic nature, and disregard for both domestic and international law, his threat must be taken seriously.”

If Trump dares to acquire Greenland and the Panama Canal forcefully, he said, the UN, EU, OAS, and other groups will all denounce such aggression but will be unable to counter him effectively in the short run.

“But in the long run, Trump’s policies and actions will alienate America’s closest allies. The US will be isolated globally to the advantage of its adversaries like China and Russia,” Gautam declared.

Any takeover will be in defiance of the UN charter and in complete violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of UN member states.

According to the United Nations Charter, described as one of the world’s most viewed founding documents of the UN, “all member states must respect the sovereignty of other states”. It also prohibits the use of force against the political independence or territorial integrity of other states.

But where will the UN stand against a military superpower– while the world body does not have the means to enforce its own resolutions?

And it harks back to the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003– despite opposition at the UN– in search of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that did not exist?

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio with Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino in Panama last week. Credit: US Embassy, Panama

Dr Alon Ben-Meir, a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU), told IPS it is not only Democrats but also many of Trump’s supporters are baffled by his arbitrary decision to take another country’s territory by force if he “has to,” such as Greenland and the Panama Canal, which is outrageous to even think about.

“Is there one single sane Trump advisor who can tell him that what he is thinking is a gross violation of international law, to unilaterally decide to take over any land that belongs to other countries?”

In addition, said Dr Ben-Meir, it is terrifying other countries, creating a dreadful feeling about what the United States represents and the harm it can inflict at this point on other states.

“To suggest that the US can unilaterally take land from a UN member state, or worse yet, in the case of Greenland, a NATO member state is nothing short of folly—to take by force land from one’s allies.”

The US, he pointed out, is committed to upholding territorial integrity, and to think that Trump can just take over the Panama Canal and invade Denmark’s territory is the highest of absurdity.

“Sadly, with the new Trump administration entering a second term, not only does the UN face an exceptionally hostile White House, but even many of the US’ friends and allies are bewildered and greatly concerned about what he might do next. They fear that nothing good will come out of this Trump administration and are bracing for the worst.”

Trump must remember that America First is best served when America is respected, not feared, he declared.

Asked about the proposed take-over of the Panama Canal and Greenland, UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq said last week: ”When it comes to any of these questions involving actual Member States’ territory, obviously, we are governed, as you know, by the UN Charter.”

“And you know that the UN Charter stands for the respect of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Member States. And all Member States and their sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected,” he said.

Elaborating further, Gautam said throughout human history, dominant imperial powers often felt that their military and economic might justify the equivalent of their “manifest destiny” and unchecked power.

“But we have now entered an era of interdependence and the need to follow a rules-based international order that the US helped craft after World War II. However, the imperial hangover still persists among certain segments of the political class in the US, as well as in Putin’s Russia, Erdogan’s Türkiye, and a few other old empires,” he pointed out.

As the Trump mania is not going to last forever, said Gautam, “I hope and expect that saner voices in favour of a mutually beneficial, rule-based international order will prevail again in the US and elsewhere”.

If human civilization is to survive and thrive, there is no choice but to follow the path of peaceful coexistence and interdependence where healthy competition is cherished but bullying by the powerful is frowned upon, he declared.

Meanwhile, in a Q&A in Panama City last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio justified the Panama Canal take-over by arguing that it is “completely unacceptable” that Hong Kong-based companies are having control over the entry and exit points of the canal. That cannot continue, he said

“And if there’s a conflict and China tells them, do everything you can to obstruct the canal so that the U.S. can’t engage in trade and commerce, so that the U.S. military and naval fleet cannot get to the Indo-Pacific fast enough, they would have to do it. They would have to do it, and they would do it. And now we’d have a major problem on our hands. That’s number one.”

Number two, “we have to talk about the fact that we built this thing. We paid for it. Thousands of people died doing this – Americans. And somehow our naval vessels who go through there, and American shipping that goes through there, pays rates some cases higher than other countries are paying – for example, a vessel from China. That’s also not acceptable”.

It was a terrible deal when it was made, it should never have been allowed.

“They’re going to tell you that it’s set by an independent administrative entity and not the government; that’s their internal problem. They’ll have to figure that out. But we should not be in a position of having to pay more than other countries. In fact, we should be getting a discount or maybe for free, because we paid for the thing,” declared Rubio.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Credit: Juan Barreto/AFP via Getty Images

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Feb 3 2025 (IPS)

Venezuela stands at a critical juncture as Nicolás Maduro begins a controversial third term as president. His 10 January inauguration, following a post-election period marked by widespread protests against election fraud and heightened repression, represents a significant setback for democratic aspirations in a country devastated by years of economic collapse and political oppression. Maduro’s confirmation at the helm is the latest chapter in a decades-long process that has transformed Venezuela from a beacon of leftist democratic aspirations into a full-blown authoritarian regime, where the last shred of legitimacy – popular election – has now vanished.

The implications of Venezuela’s crisis extend far beyond its borders, triggering the largest refugee exodus in the Americas and creating significant challenges for neighbouring countries. Almost eight million Venezuelans live abroad, with projections suggesting another two or three million might leave in the coming years.

This crisis comes at a moment when, unlike in the past, two key factors potentially leading to a democratic transition are present: unprecedented opposition unity capable of sustaining a protest movement and growing international support, with progressive Latin American governments increasingly distancing themselves from Maduro. However, Maduro’s willingness to use violent repression and his ability to maintain military loyalty suggest a difficult path ahead for democratic restoration.

Election fraud and post-election repression

The 2024 presidential election initially sparked hopes for democratic change. These hopes were crushed when Maduro declared himself the winner despite clear evidence that opposition candidate Edmundo González Urrutia had secured a significant victory.

The election campaign unfolded against a backdrop of intensifying civic space restrictions and was far from free and fair. The government disqualified popular opposition leader María Corina Machado and blocked her proposed replacement, forcing the opposition to field González Urrutia. Additional irregularities included systematic persecution of opposition leaders, abuse of public resources, media manipulation and voter suppression tactics, particularly targeting the estimated four million Venezuelan voters abroad.

Despite these challenges, the opposition demonstrated unprecedented unity and organisation. Through its Plan 600K initiative, it mobilised around 600,000 volunteers to monitor polling stations, collect the tallies produced by voting machines and independently calculate results. Their parallel count revealed that González won around 67 per cent of votes compared to Maduro’s 29 per cent, figures supported by independent exit polls. However, the National Electoral Council stopped publishing results after counting 40 per cent of votes, eventually declaring an implausible Maduro victory without providing any supporting data.

Fraud sparked widespread unrest, with 915 spontaneous protests erupting across Venezuelan cities in the two days following the election. The regime’s response was swift and severe. It labelled protests a ‘fascist outbreak’ and charged many protesters with terrorism and incitement to hatred. Security forces used deadly force, resulting in at least 25 deaths, while pro-government paramilitaries engaged in intimidation and violence.

The crackdown extended beyond protesters to target opposition and civil society leaders. Several prominent figures were forced into hiding or exile, while others faced arbitrary detention. Repression intensified in the lead-up to Maduro’s inauguration, with 75 new political detentions in the first 11 days of January alone.

Inauguration day

Maduro’s inauguration reflected both the regime’s isolation and its increasingly authoritarian character. Only two presidents – from Cuba and Nicaragua – attended the ceremony, while other governments sent lower-level representatives. The swearing-in ceremony took place 90 minutes earlier than scheduled, out of fear that the opposition’s president-elect, in exile in Spain, could somehow materialise its declared intention to enter Venezuela and hold a parallel counter-inauguration.

The government implemented extraordinary security measures to make sure this wouldn’t happen, closing land borders with Brazil and Colombia, shutting down Venezuelan airspace and deploying an unprecedented number of security forces throughout Caracas. The militarisation extended to the closure of opposition-controlled neighbourhoods and the pre-emptive detention of dozens of opposition figures.

Maduro’s inaugural address and subsequent appearances were particularly confrontational. He announced plans for constitutional changes to further consolidate power and declared the beginning of a new phase of governance based on a strong alliance between civilian authorities, military forces, the police and the intelligence apparatus. He openly discussed Venezuela’s readiness to take up arms against intervention alongside Cuba and Nicaragua, framing political opposition as a threat to national sovereignty.

International responses and regional implications

In the Americas, only Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras and Nicaragua recognise Maduro as the legitimately elected president, with only an additional handful worldwide, including China, Iran and Russia, maintaining their support.

The USA responded to Maduro’s inauguration by increasing the reward it offers for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to US$25 million, while also targeting his inner circle with new sanctions. The European Union also imposed new sanctions. The G7’s foreign ministers and the High Representative of the European Union issued a joint statement condemning Maduro’s ‘lack of democratic legitimacy’ and the ongoing repression of civil society and the political opposition.

Most significantly, the positions of Latin American states appear to be slowly shifting, with some left-wing leaders, notably those of Brazil and Colombia, not automatically siding with the Maduro regime for the first time. However, Colombia’s pragmatic approach reveals the complexities faced by Venezuela’s neighbours: while not accepting the official election results at face value, Colombia has stopped short of condemnation and has been careful to maintain its diplomatic relations, citing the need to manage border issues and the refugee situation.

Prospects for democratic change

The path to democratic transition faces significant obstacles, with military support remaining crucial to Maduro’s hold on power. The regime has secured military loyalty through a combination of institutional integration, coercion and economic privilege, with high-ranking military officers reaping generous rewards. The regime has found additional layers of protection in security structures including the National Bolivarian Guard, special police units and pro-government militias, and the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, strongly backed by G2, Cuba’s secret service.

But the authoritarian regime has vulnerabilities. Growing international isolation, combined with continued economic deterioration, may eventually strain the system of patronage that maintains elite loyalty, including among the military. The opposition’s commitment to peaceful resistance, while seemingly ineffective in the short term, continues to earn it moral authority and international support.

While the combination of peaceful resistance, international pressure and potential internal divisions within the regime may eventually create conditions for change, the immediate future suggests a continuing struggle between an entrenched authoritarian system and a resilient democratic movement. The outcome will have profound implications for Venezuela and for all of Latin America.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Credit: Emidio Jozine. Mozambique has been affected by weeks of post-electoral violence. UN News

By Egídio Chaimite
MAPUTO, Mozambique, Feb 3 2025 (IPS)

No illusions: Mozambique remains in crisis, despite the inauguration of Daniel Chapo as president and the establishment of a new parliament. While the widespread allegations of massive electoral fraud during the elections on 9 October 2024 were the immediate trigger for the unrest, the protests revealed deeply entrenched socio-economic and political grievances.

There is significant frustration over the escalating cost of living, rising inequality, persistent unemployment and lack of quality public services — challenges that have defined Mozambique’s development path over the past decade. These socio-economic pressures have fuelled feelings of marginalisation and despair, particularly among the youth and the large group of people struggling to make ends meet.

Led by Venâncio Mondlane, the officially recognised runner-up in the presidential election, the protests quickly gained momentum, especially among young people. The protesters explicitly rejected the election results and expressed their dissatisfaction with FRELIMO’s 49-year rule, calling for an end to what they describe as a failed governance model that has perpetuated economic stagnation and political exclusion.

More than three months of protests have now passed. The death toll surpasses 300, with over 600 injured and many still unaccounted for. Both public and private infrastructures have sustained extensive damage. Yet, the deadlock continues. Attempts at dialogue have failed, leaving the country engulfed in a state of uncertainty.

Two presidents, one divided nation

Mozambique now faces the unprecedented challenge of two claimants to the presidency: Chapo, the official head of state, and Mondlane, the self-declared ‘president of the people’. Both inaugurations have been overshadowed by violence, reflecting a wider trend in how dissent is managed in the country.

FRELIMO’s long history of using state security forces to advance its own political agenda is evident in the police’s consistent and brutal response to protests. Tear gas, live bullets and even home invasions have been deployed, resulting in the deaths and injuries of uninvolved civilians.

This excessive use of force has gone largely unaddressed by Chapo, his predecessor Filipe Nyusi, and senior police officials, reinforcing perceptions of complicity or even direct orchestration in the suppression of opposition.

But the violence is not one-sided. Protesters have engaged in sabotage and even launched attacks on police stations, resulting in the deaths of police officers. In some neighbourhoods, protesters went so far as to declare that they would completely replace the Polícia da República de Moçambique (PRM) and form their own police force, further eroding the authority of the official security apparatus.

Adding fuel to the fire, Mondlane recently announced a controversial retaliation doctrine: for every protester killed by police, a police officer would be killed in return. It is ‘an eye for an eye’.

In a defiant bid to undermine Chapo’s authority, Mondlane has embraced a shadow governance model. Issuing what he calls ‘presidential decrees’, he has called for civil disobedience, including boycotts of toll fees and demands for price reductions on essential goods like water, energy and cement.

His populist measures have struck a chord with many supporters, but their enforcement often spirals into protests and, at times, violence.

Meanwhile, Chapo’s administration, still struggling to form his government, has yet to meaningfully address the unfolding crisis. In a recent development, Ana Rita Sithole, a senior figure within FRELIMO, dismissed the possibility of a political agreement with Mondlane, sending a clear signal that a faction within the party is unwilling to engage in dialogue, thereby prolonging the standoff and undermining any prospect of restoring peace. This hard-line position only deepens the political divide, casting a shadow over Mozambique’s already fragile future.

Escalation and authoritarianism or stability and dialogue?

Mozambique’s uncertain future is dominated by two possible scenarios — one of escalation, the other of reconciliation and a return to stability. The potential for dialogue stands as the decisive factor separating these two trajectories. However, progress in fostering such dialogue has so far been disappointingly limited.

In the first scenario, instability deepens as both sides entrench their positions. In this scenario, Mondlane continues to rally civil disobedience, protests and mass mobilisation, further eroding Chapo’s ability to govern effectively. Faced with mounting pressure, Chapo might follow the repressive path of his predecessor Nyusi, increasingly depending on police crackdowns and state security forces to assert control.

While these measures may be aimed at restoring order, they risk inflaming tensions further. Every act of repression could provoke stronger resistance from opposition supporters, potentially spiralling into a dangerous cycle of violence and escalating unrest.

Political persecution might intensify, targeting prominent opposition figures, journalists and activists. In an extreme scenario, this could even result in the assassination or imprisonment of key opposition leaders such as Mondlane himself, sparking further outrage among his supporters and deepening societal divisions.

This trajectory is neither new nor unique. Other nations facing post-electoral crises have travelled similar roads of increased repression and authoritarianism. Zimbabwe after its 2008 elections, Ethiopia after 2005, Venezuela in 2018 and Russia in 2011 are stark examples. While such measures may offer short-term control, they ultimately prove unsustainable, leading to prolonged instability or deeper authoritarian rule.

Mozambique now faces a similar risk, with police brutality against protesters reaching alarming and unacceptable levels. This intensification of repression underscores the urgent need for a new, more inclusive and less militaristic approach to address the crisis.

A second, more optimistic scenario hinges on a return to dialogue. Genuine engagement between Chapo, Mondlane and key societal stakeholders – including civil society, religious leaders and academics – could defuse tensions and restore trust in governance.

Unfortunately, efforts to initiate dialogue have so far encountered substantial setbacks. Former President Nyusi made an early attempt by inviting Mondlane to the table, but the latter’s preconditions – primarily related to his safety – were not addressed, leading to his absence from the talks.

Subsequent discussions included Chapo and representatives from several opposition parties, such as Ossufo Momade (RENAMO), Lutero Simango (MDM), Albino Forquilha (Podemos) and Salomão Muchanga (Nova Democracia), but Mondlane’s continued absence limited their scope and effectiveness.

When Mondlane eventually returned to Mozambique at the beginning of this month, there was speculation about possible meetings with other opposition leaders, but these talks never materialised. In his inaugural speech, Chapo himself stressed the need for ‘frank, honest and sincere’ dialogue, calling it a priority for political and social stability.

Yet, nearly two weeks after assuming office, there were no reports of any substantial dialogue initiatives, and Chapo publicly denied the existence of any ongoing negotiations.

For this scenario to succeed, Chapo, as the president of the Republic, must take decisive action and leverage his leadership position to build consensus for the good of the country. At the same time, Mondlane must demonstrate openness for a negotiated solution to the conflict and reconsider his list of demands, particularly since his fight for ‘electoral truth’ seems difficult to win after the constitutional court processed the complaints and officially determined the final results.

Although more serious now, Mozambique’s current deadlock mirrors the tensions that followed the 2009 elections. As then, there is reluctance to engage in meaningful dialogue. Sadly, that earlier impasse eventually gave way to armed confrontations between RENAMO, the largest opposition party at the time, and the FRELIMO government.

To prevent history from repeating itself, leaders need to do more than make symbolic gestures; the situation calls for authentic, inclusive engagement that amplifies the voices of all — including opposition leaders and civil society. Only by replacing entrenched divisions with sincere dialogue can the country break free from its cycle of conflict and work toward a stable, democratic future.

Egídio Chaimite is a Senior Researcher at IESE in Mozambique, specialising in governance, elections, human rights and social movements. With extensive publications and experience in programme design, implementation and evaluation, he also teaches electoral management and public policy at top Mozambican universities.

Source: International Politics and Society (IPS), published by the Global and European Policy Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

The proportion of America’s elderly population, currently defined unfortunately as those aged 65 years or older, has increased from 8 percent in 1950 to 18 percent today. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, US, Feb 3 2025 (IPS)

Many Americans, especially the wealthy and successful, have discovered that the US is facing the scourge of an ageing elderly population that is seriously threatening the nation’s prosperity, economic growth and international standing.

The youthful, dynamic and innovative population of the recent past is being rapidly replaced by an unproductive ageing elderly population that is becoming increasingly costly and dependent on the government for support and care.

The demographic sign posts are clear. The average age of America’s population, for example, shot up from 30 years in 1950 to close to 40 years today. As the scourge endures, the country’s average age is expected to reach 42 years by 2050 and 45 years before the end of the century (Table 1).

 

Source: US Census Bureau.

 

In contrast, the average age of Nigeria’s population, which is the largest in Africa, has remained at 18 years or less since 1950. Moreover, by midcentury, Nigeria’s average age is expected to be a robust 24 years.

In addition to average age, the proportion of America’s elderly population, currently defined unfortunately as those aged 65 years or older, has increased from 8 percent in 1950 to 18 percent today. And by mid-century, a staggering one in four Americans is expected to be elderly according to today’s antiquated definition.

The number of elderly in America is expected to surge from today’s 60 million to more than 80 million by 2050. Also, the number of Americans who are 85 years or older is expected to more than double over the next several decades. Even more troubling, the number of people aged 100 or older is projected to more than triple by mid-century.

Some of the consequences of America’s ageing elderly population include increased health and medical care costs, shrinkage of the labor force, unsustainable financial strains approaching insolvency, rising demands for costly long-term care and financial assistance, less innovation and fewer business startups, reduction in technological adoption, and slowdowns in the nation’s vital economy due to reduced spending by the elderly.

Expenditures on the various woke socialist programs for the elderly, such as Social Security and Medicare, are devouring close to half of the country’s federal budget and contributing to the national debt, which is on course to exceed its record as a share of the economy in the next two years.

The return on investment (ROI) on those costly socialist programs for the elderly is negative, thereby incurring considerable losses for the country.

Stated simply and honestly, as America’s top economists have repeatedly warned, the government’s spending on the woke socialist programs for the elderly is a terrible economic investment for America. The ROI on government expenditures needs to be positive.

Also as a result of America’s scourge of an ageing elderly population, its working age population has not kept pace with the growth of the elderly. In particular, the critical number of people in the working ages per elderly person has decreased dramatically. Whereas in 1940 there were 42 people in the working ages per elderly person, by 1950 that ratio declined to 17. Today the ratio has totally collapsed to 3 and by 2050 is projected to decline to 2 people in the working ages per elderly person (Figure 1).

 

Source: US Census Bureau.

 

Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on the ageing elderly population, those dollars need to be invested in young Americans who will enthusiastically participate in the labor force. That investment will strengthen America’s economy as well as sustain its primacy in the world.

The fundamental cause of America’s scourge of an ageing elderly population is a low fertility rate. And the country’s low fertility rate is due to women in America choosing to have few or no children.

Unfortunately, America’s fertility rate has collapsed from nearly four births per woman around 1960 to approximately 1.6 births per woman today. The current fertility level is well below the needed replacement level of about two births per woman.

Coupled with the country’s tragically low fertility rate is the worrisome increase in life expectancies among the elderly, especially among the oldest old. Regrettably, America’s elderly are living longer than ever before.

Whereas in 1950 life expectancy at age 65 years was a reasonable 14 years, today it has reached 20 years. Unfortunately, life expectancies of the elderly are expected to continue increasing throughout the remainder of the 21st century.

Fortunately, however, the US president can take actions, Congress can adopt policies and the Supreme Court can render decisions to address and even reverse America’s scourge of an ageing elderly population.

The government should incentivize, promote and encourage young women to have numerous children. Also, they need to emphasize the enormous benefits of families with many children for America’s future.

Policies, programs and legal decisions should facilitate women having numerous children and remain working. Moreover, women with numerous children should receive special consideration and priority in employment, government service and university admissions.

The country’s unproductive nursing homes for the elderly need to be shut down with the elderly currently residing in those institutions returned to their homes and families. Instead of relying on the government’s woke socialist programs for the elderly, families should be responsible for caring for their old and feeble relatives as was the case throughout much of America’s history.

Transferring the costs and care for the elderly from the government to the families of the elderly will rein in the federal budget. It will also reduce the growing and excessive tax burden on hard-working American taxpayers.

Such a transfer will also encourage young women as well as men across America to have numerous children in order to ensure that they will have the needed care and support when they become elderly.

In addition to criminals, illegal migrants aged 65 years or older should be given high priority for return to their home countries. America should also limit legal immigration to healthy, heterosexual men below the age of 30 years and fertile, heterosexual women below the age of 25 years. Doing so will increase the size of the country’s labor force as well as increase America’s low birth rate.

Regarding the many elderly people relying on government funds and assistance, they will be required to join the labor force and become financially independent. Many of them can take over the jobs of the deported illegal migrants as well as provide childcare services. Doing so will help maintain the size of America’s labor force, assist families with young children, contribute to lowering poverty levels among the elderly and also reduce the government’s financial burden on the highly unprofitable programs for the elderly.

Given the troubling increased longevity of both men and women across America, the traditional, antiquated definition of the elderly, which is persons 65 years or older, must be changed in order to be in line with the demographic and economic realities of the 21st century.

With the backing of the Supreme Court, Congress should pass legislation redefining America’s elderly population as men and women who are aged 80 years or older. Such a definitional change would reduce the number of elderly people in America to slightly less than a quarter of its current size (Figure 2).

 

Source: US Census Bureau.

 

Such a common sense and desirable change in the definition of the elderly will significantly increase the size of the country’s labor force. It will also raise the eligibility age for Social Security, Medicare and related programs for the elderly and hence reduce the unprofitable expenditures on those programs.

In sum, the scourge of an ageing elderly population is spreading across the country and undermining America’s economy, prosperity and global standing. In order to halt and reverse the spread of this dreadful scourge, the president must take action with Congress passing legislation and the Supreme Court rendering decisions that will return America to the wonderful, youthful, productive, energetic populations of its recent past. It’s time to make America young again!

 

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.

 

Syrian Civil Defense prepares to remove unexploded munitions of all shapes and types, including landmines. Credit: Sonia Alali/IPS

By Sonia Al Ali
IDLIB, Syria, Feb 3 2025 (IPS)

When 42-year-old Amina al-Hassan’s family returned home after the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime, her son stood on a landmine.

Hassan, from Kafranbel in southern Idlib countryside, sits beside her son’s bed in the hospital after his leg was amputated following the explosion on agricultural land near their home.

“After the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime and the expulsion of its elements from our city, we went to check on our house, while my son went to inspect the agricultural land near the house. He did not notice a landmine planted among the weeds and plants, and it exploded, amputating his leg,” she told IPS.

Explosive remnants of war and landmines are scattered haphazardly across Syria, endangering the lives of civilians, hindering the return of displaced persons to their cities and villages, and obstructing their agricultural work. The frequency of explosions caused by unexploded ordnance and abandoned explosive ordnance has significantly increased following the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad regime and the fading of the frontlines between the regime and the opposition, where mines and unexploded ordnance are widely dispersed.

“When I heard the explosion, I ran as fast as lightning towards the source of the sound. When I reached the explosion site, I tried to take out my son myself, but the people present at the scene prevented me from doing so. One of the engineering team specialists took charge of removing the mines around him and took him out, then we rushed him to the nearest hospital in the city,” she said, her voice tinged with sorrow.

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) confirmed on January 14 that the deadly legacy of landmines and other explosives left behind by years of conflict in Syria had killed more than 100 children in December alone, urging the international community to urgently support mine clearance projects across the country.

According to the Syria Response Coordinators team, the war remnants left by the former Syrian regime continue to claim the lives of Syrians. Since December 8, 2024, explosions of mines and cluster munitions in more than 108 locations in Syria have killed 109 people, including 9 children and 6 women. More than 121 others were injured, including 48 children and one woman.

Rowan al-Kamal (46), from the western Aleppo countryside, visited her home after Syria was liberated from the Assad regime. Unlike many others, she was fortunate, not because her house was intact, but because she noticed an unexploded shell near the house. She recounts, “I moved my children away and called the Syrian Civil Defense, who worked to dismantle it. We were saved from death or injury.”

Kamal adds, “I don’t know how I spotted it amidst the rubble. When I saw it, I was rushing to check what remained of the house. I think my eyes have become accustomed to recognizing shells, as we lived with them throughout the long years of war.”

She reveals that she won’t be able to return to her home due to the presence of landmines and unexploded ordnance, despite living in a makeshift camp with her family of seven and facing extremely harsh conditions, especially with the significant drop in temperatures and the inability of humanitarian organizations to provide the displaced with necessary supplies such as food and heating.

While Kamal and her family survived injury or death, Wael al-Ahmad (22), from Has town in southern Idlib, lost his life after his city was liberated. His mother, Fatima al-Ahmad, recounts, “My son was tending to the sheep on the outskirts of the town and stepped on a landmine without noticing it, causing him severe injuries. He passed away hours later due to his injuries.”

Ahmad calls for intensified efforts to remove these remnants to prevent further casualties and ensure the safe return of the displaced. “The war remnants planted by the Syrian regime and its allies represent a delayed death for Syrians, as they threaten lives and prevent civilians from returning to their homes and farms,” she says tearfully.

Mohammed al-Saeed (32), who works on a war remnants removal team at the Syrian Civil Defense, explains, “War remnants are unexploded munitions of all shapes and types that remain in an area after the end of a war.”

He adds, “War remnants pose a real threat to Syrians in various parts of the country. They are divided into unexploded ordnance such as bombs, rockets, and shells, in addition to landmines.”

Al-Saeed clarifies that the first type is easier to remove and avoid because it can be seen and is usually found above ground. However, the biggest challenge lies in landmines that people cannot see.

Saeed further explained that Syrian government forces planted hundreds of thousands of mines in various regions of Syria, particularly in agricultural lands, military barracks, and frontline areas between the regime and the opposition. He warned that anyone returning to their town, home, or land should be aware that there may be unexploded ordnance present.

According to Saeed, Syrian Civil Defense teams conducted 822 operations to dispose of unexploded ordnance in northwestern Syria between November 27, 2024, and January 3, 2025.

He urged residents to be cautious of strange objects, to avoid touching or moving them, and to report them immediately. Meanwhile, Civil Defense engineering teams continue to conduct daily technical surveys of land contaminated with war remnants and work to dispose of munitions.

Saeed emphasized the need for the international community to work with the new Syrian government and coordinate with it to remove mines by providing funding to expand the Civil Defense’s capacity, hire more personnel, purchase more equipment, and operate in wider areas.

‘The former Syrian regime and its allied militias deliberately planted mines in vital areas, aiming to inflict the maximum number of civilian casualties. This long-term crime represents another facet of their brutal practices,” says Saeed.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Camps of Death, Terror: Syrian Survivors Face Long Road To Recovery
• Syrian Displaced Children Go Hungry, Stunting Their Growth
• Absence of Reproductive Care Haunts Syrian Displaced Women

Portion of the Jáltipan-Salina Cruz pipeline, which operates between the southeastern state of Veracruz and the southern region of Oaxaca. To meet its industrialization goals, Mexico would have to increase its reliance on fossil gas imported from the United States. Credit: Cenagás

By Emilio Godoy
MEXICO, Jan 31 2025 (IPS)

This January, Mexico has embarked on a new industrial path for the next six years, where the viability of its energy component faces fundamental challenges that put it at risk.

Energy scarcity is among the main obstacles faced by the economic program of President Claudia Sheinbaum, who has been in office since October.

Researcher Luca Ferrari from the Geosciences Center of the public National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) identified limited financial resources and energy supply as barriers to progress.

“There are budgetary and energy quantity constraints. Increased industrialization for export will run into energy shortages or very limited availability, due to necessary investments and where they will come from. We are in a very precarious energy situation because we are dependent on fossil fuels and are energy deficient,” he told IPS."These are isolated projects that may be interesting. They are a statement of intentions, but should be read in light of other public policy instruments, such as climate and transition, along with the need to align with a comprehensive energy policy": Carlos Asunsolo.

Launched on January 13 under the general title of the National Industrialization and Shared Prosperity Strategy, Plan Mexico (PM) consists of 10 objectives, 13 goals, 2,000 projects, and a total planned investment of US$277 billion, which would create 1.5 million new jobs in manufacturing and other sectors.

Among the plan’s investments, which are seen internally as a partial response to the arrival of ultra-conservative Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, is an investment by the state-owned Federal Electricity Commissionx (CFE) of US$23.4 billion.

Of this, US$12.3 billion will be allocated to generation, US$7.5 billion to transmission infrastructure, and US$3.6 billion to decentralized photovoltaic production in homes.

Additionally, the government is preparing rules for the private sector’s renewed participation in electricity generation, a modality suspended since 2018 to favor CFE and also the state-owned Mexican Petroleum (Pemex).

This return would include, among other measures, lower energy purchase costs for the electric monopoly and the use of storage batteries to maintain grid stability.

As a result, the plan would add 21,893 megawatts (MW) to the national energy matrix, aiming to reach a 37.8% of clean energy, up from the current 22.5%. By law, CFE controls 54% of the electricity market, with the rest being in private hands.

At least 17 transmission and distribution projects are under study for implementation at an undetermined time, but their development would be independent of the new PM, which does incorporate several projects already underway, as well as new ones.

With a current installed capacity of 89,000 MW, in 2024 approximately 63% of electricity generation depended on fossil gas, followed by conventional thermoelectricity (6.8%), hydroelectricity (5.9%), wind energy (5.8%), solar photovoltaic (5.2%), nuclear (3%), and geothermal (1%).

Renewable sources have an installed capacity of 33,517 MW but only contribute 22.5% of electricity.

In December 2023, during the annual climate summit in Dubai, Mexico joined the Global Commitment on Renewables and Energy Efficiency, which aims to triple alternative installed capacity and double the energy efficiency rate by 2030. Thus, the PM would fall short of the clean generation target.

The first phase of the Puerto Peñasco photovoltaic plant, with a capacity of 120 megawatts and located in the northern state of Sonora, has been operational since 2023. The Mexican government included the project in its multi-billion-dollar investment for the energy sector. Credit: Government of Mexico

Gasify, baby, gasify

Since December 2018, when Sheinbaum’s predecessor and mentor left-wing populist Andrés Manuel López Obrador took office as president, Mexico has pursued the so far unattained goal of energy sovereignty, one of whose effects has been the halt of the transition to less polluting fuels.

Sheinbaum’s new package of projects continues this model but also deviates from its extremes, in what seems like the resurrection of the much-needed energy transition, in a strategy marked by apparent contradictions.

For Carlos Asunsolo, manager of Research and Public Policy at the non-governmental Mexican Center for Environmental Law (Cemda), Plan Mexico lacks specific details, such as the pathways to achieve the goals.

“These are isolated projects that may be interesting. It is a statement of intentions, but it should be read in light of other public policy instruments, such as climate and transition, along with the need to align with a comprehensive energy policy,” he analyzed for IPS.

The expert cited concerns about project execution conditions, their type, human rights guarantees, and transparency.

One of the pillars of PM is promoting the relocation (nearshoring) of companies in sectors such as electronics, high technology, and the automotive industry. This is due to the alteration of global maritime transport routes, the repercussions of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and the trade dispute between the United States and China.

This section also needs energy and projects progress in the construction of 100 industrial parks, including 12 in the Interoceanic Corridor of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (CIIT), a megaproject already underway under the responsibility of the Ministry of the Navy.

This corridor in the southeast of the country is one of the three most important legacies of the current government, along with the Maya Train in the southeastern Yucatán Peninsula and the Olmeca refinery in the state of Tabasco, also in the southeast. All three are integrated into the new PM.

The CIIT involves the construction and modernization of three rail routes and three ports between the Pacific coast and the Atlantic Gulf of Mexico.

A lone solar panel powering a water well in the rural community of Tahdzui, in the southeastern Mexican state of Yucatán. The government of Claudia Sheinbaum has shown signs of reviving the clean energy transition, which had been suspended since 2018, including decentralized generation. Credit: Emilio Godoy / IPS

But these facilities, which seek regional development in the southeast and the substitution of imports from Asia, require lots of energy. Existing and planned renewable generation would not be enough in this area, which would lead Mexico to deepen its dependence on gas imported from the United States.

Since 2010, the northern neighbor has sent more than 18 billion cubic feet (ft3) of gas to Mexico via pipelines. In 2023, Mexico consumed 8.514 billion ft3 daily, of which it imported 6.141 billion from the United States, making it the supplier of 72% of all its gas.

Additionally, the López Obrador administration promoted the Sonora Sustainable Energy Plan, which includes photovoltaic energy, lithium exploitation, and electric vehicle manufacturing in the northern state of Sonora, and which is now incorporated into Sheinbaum’s PM.

One of its components is the Puerto Peñasco photovoltaic plant in Sonora, whose first phase of 120 MW has been operational since 2023. When completed in 2026, it will provide 1,000 MW, with a total investment of $1.6 billion.

For Ferrari, the UNAM researcher, the only possibility for more energy to sustain the business promise is gas.

“We are already in a ridiculously dependent situation. In the United States, production has stabilized over the past year, and it is likely to fall in the coming years. Gas delivery to Mexico is not guaranteed,” he predicted.

Meanwhile, specialist Asunsolo considers it essential to question for whom and for what more energy is being generated, the size of the projects, and the fueling of consumption, at a time when the climate crisis is tightening its grip on very vulnerable places like Mexico.

“There is a clear bet for CFE, through gas, and Pemex, through hydrocarbons, to be the main energy policy. We are only swapping one problem for another with the change of source. If it does not translate into a reduction of hydrocarbons, only generation capacity is increased. There is a confusing message,” emphasized the Cemda expert.

As it progresses, the PM will not only have to face energy obstacles, according to analysts, but will also have to navigate the growing water deficit.

Northern Mexico and parts of the center, south, and southeast were experiencing some degree of drought by January 15, raising questions about water availability for the large projects outlined in the new industrial plan.

 

By CIVICUS
Jan 31 2025 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses activism against oil auctions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) with François Kamate, founder and coordinator of the young environmental volunteer movement Extinction Rebellion Rutshuru.

François Kamate

In October 2024, climate activists in the DRC won the suspension of a controversial oil and gas licence auction that threatened the Congo Basin rainforest and Virunga National Park, two carbon reservoirs that are vital for Africa. The civil society campaign exposed the environmental damage and social costs of oil extraction in these fragile ecosystems. Despite arrests and police violence, campaigners mobilised support through local actions, public protests, petitions and international partnerships. But the suspension is temporary and the government plans to resume auctions. In response, civil society has launched a new campaign, Our Oil-Free Earth.

What’s the current state of oil and gas exploitation in the DRC?

The DRC, a country with unique potential to respond to the global climate crisis, is paradoxically pursuing a policy of auctioning off its oil and gas. Companies such as Alfajiri Energy Corporation, Perenco, Production LLC, Red Winds Exploration and Symbion Power, in collaboration with the political and administrative authorities, have launched tenders to exploit 27 oil blocks and three gas blocks. These areas, which are vital for biodiversity, local communities and the global climate, are now threatened by these projects, which the authorities see as an economic opportunity.

These auctions continue despite the US$500 million agreement signed by the DRC at COP26 to halt deforestation in the Congo Basin. The example of Perenco, which has been exploiting resources in the Central Congo Province for 20 years, illustrates the disastrous consequences: further environmental degradation without any social benefits for local communities.

What would be the consequences of extraction in these ecosystems?

The consequences would be disastrous. In the short term, mining would destroy Upemba National Park, one of the country’s oldest, and Virunga National Park, Africa’s most biodiverse protected area, compromising their crucial role in regulating the global climate. The destruction of peatlands, which store immense amounts of carbon dioxide, would release massive quantities of greenhouse gases, exacerbating the climate crisis. Local communities would be exposed to an increase in respiratory diseases caused by air, soil and water pollution.

In the long term, mining would lead to land expropriation, the disruption of agricultural activities, increased insecurity for thousands of families and massive population displacement. It would also encourage the proliferation of armed groups in protected areas, exacerbating instability and encouraging corruption among the authorities.

What campaign tactics have been effective?

The most effective tactics have been those based on non-violent and peaceful action. We organised peaceful marches to mobilise people and draw attention to our cause. We organised sit-ins in strategic locations to keep the pressure on the authorities. We also used open letters to publicly question politicians and call for boycotts to target companies involved in oil and gas extraction. Public meetings helped raise awareness and mobilise local communities.

‘Dead city’ days – stay-at-home protests – were a symbolic but powerful form of protest, and door-to-door meetings with residents in affected areas strengthened our links with communities. Participatory forums and artistic activities such as musical performances were also essential in spreading our message.

How has the campaign influenced the debate on oil and gas extraction in the DRC?

The campaign has had a significant impact. It exposed the many irregularities in the process of putting oil and gas blocks up for sale. For example, there was a blatant contradiction between the minutes of the Council of Ministers, which announced 16 oil blocks, and the public statements of the Minister of Hydrocarbons, who spoke of 27 oil blocks and three gas blocks, revealing obvious corrupt practices.

Doubts have also been raised about the actual amount of oil available, calling into question the viability of these projects. The inexperience of some of the companies selected, such as Alfajiri, and disputes surrounding some of the blocks put up for sale have also been criticised.

What obstacles have you encountered?

First of all, the ongoing insecurity around some of the protected areas made it difficult to organise our activities. Threats from the authorities and armed groups present in parks such as Virunga were also a major obstacle.

The lack of resources to reach all the communities bordering the oil and gas blocks complicated our work. We also faced bans and repression of protests, intimidation, arrests of activists and interrogations.

To overcome these challenges, we implemented strategic communications, strengthened our international partnerships and adapted our approaches to local realities.

What’s your strategy for dealing with the possible relaunch of auctions?

We have launched a new campaign that will push for the definitive cancellation of the auctions and support for investment in clean and renewable energy. At the same time, we will be demanding that the DRC immediately withdraw from its bilateral agreement with Uganda on the exploitation of hydrocarbons from transboundary resources, given the disastrous impact of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline project on Ugandan people.

In order to achieve permanent cancellation, we need resources to invest in actions on the ground, expand our actions to other platforms, strengthen our links with other structures and organise coaching sessions and online or face-to-face mentoring to support activists in building sustainable social movements. We also need to participate in activist gatherings and international conferences to highlight auction issues and build global support for our cause.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Twitter

SEE ALSO
DRC: ‘Civil society action is needed more than ever, but the space in which it can undertake it is getting smaller’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Bahati Rubango 13.Apr.2024
DRC: ‘Civil society is targeted by politicians who see it as an obstacle to their power’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Jonathan Magoma 08.Feb.2024
DRC: ‘Defending the environment means becoming the target of politicians and businesspeople’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Guillaume Kalonji 02.Aug.2023

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• FEATURED TRANSLATION – FRENCH

By Felix Dodds
SAN FRANCISCO, California / APEX, North Carolina, Jan 31 2025 (IPS)

When it comes to climate change, the awful news has been coming thick and fast. We now know that in 2024, the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time.

Extreme weather seems to be multiplying, with shocking fires in Los Angeles and storms striking Europe and America’s east coast since the start of the year. U.S. President Donald Trump has announced his country will turn its back on the ambitious Paris Agreement adopted in 2015.

Meanwhile, the United Nations’ latest annual summit—COP29 in Azerbaijan—ended in November with complaints it had done too little to change the narrative. Some even questioned whether the UN’s ongoing exertions were a waste of time, and whether annual global climate summits were still worth doing?

Are things really so bad? Let’s break down the news piece-by-piece and look at each issue in turn.

 

How bad is it that we have broken the 1.5C ceiling?

It’s pretty bad. It means we can expect extreme weather like heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, and flooding to increase in frequency and severity. It’s also going to affect food production, harm many plant and animal species, and risk sending the world over several “tipping points”, such as faster melting of ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, and elsewhere, causing sea-level rise. If you don’t like that our weather is getting more extreme, then sadly it’s too late. We’ll all have to get used to it, and adapt accordingly.

That said, it’s not all doom and gloom. There are some silver linings. First, the world has actually been doing a lot to fight back. Partly prompted by major international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, countries have been actively finding ways to reduce emissions, such as investing in green technologies and working on new policies that affect pretty much everything we do.

Whether it’s new energy efficiency programmes in our homes and offices, efforts to protect our forests, or the rise in hybrid and electric vehicles, a lot is happening. Perhaps the biggest transformation has been the growth of solar and wind power, which is now considerably cheaper and more efficient that earlier sources of electricity like coal or natural gas. The pay-off is clear, with countries like the UK, Sweden, and Denmark already cutting their greenhouse gas emissions in half since the 1990s.

Another silver lining of our efforts to cut emissions is expert projections for temperature rise in the longer term. Before the Paris Agreement, some were predicting temperatures to go up by 4-6C by 2100, which would be catastrophic for humanity and the planet; an extinction event for modern civilization. Now, the estimates sit around 2-2.8C, depending on whether countries honour the goals they’ve set themselves. These numbers are still bad, but nowhere near as terrifying as they were.

So yes, 1.5 is bad and we will need to redouble our efforts to make sure it doesn’t get much worse. But we shouldn’t give up hope just yet.

 

What does President Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Agreement mean?

No one can deny that U.S. leadership greatly helps our global efforts to combat climate change.

Still, there are several reasons why we shouldn’t panic. First, as mentioned above, the world is already on a long-term path to cut emissions. The new U.S. administration may wish to “drill, baby, drill,” but renewables will continue to rise. Why? Because they’re cheaper than the alternatives. As an experienced business leader, President Trump knows as well as anyone that companies are motivated by profits. They will look for the most cost-effective energy option. In many cases, this will mean renewable energy.

Secondly, even if the U.S. does leave Paris and change its domestic policies, there is an inertia in systems. The outgoing Biden administration, which had pledged $3 billion for the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF), has already handed over $2 billion. They’ve also spent much larger amounts on supporting the U.S. transition to a green economy. This is money the new President will not be able to take back. Plus, a country as big and powerful as America can’t turn its entire economy around overnight. For instance, during President Trump’s first term, emissions in the U.S. continued to fall, even if he himself did not support this.

Thirdly, even American presidents aren’t all powerful. There are many other interests and alternative viewpoints in the U.S. Others who might disagree with President Trump will likely step up and try to fill the gap. For instance, business leader Michael Bloomberg has just announced that he will help cover U.S. financial obligations to the UN and its climate work. There is precedent for this, too. Back in the 2000s, a lot of progress was made on climate change at the state and city level throughout the U.S., even though President George W. Bush generally didn’t support it.

Finally, there has been a shift in the centre of gravity when it comes to climate change. The U.S. remains important, but on climate change it matters less than it once did. Under Presidents Obama, Biden, and Trump himself, U.S. emissions have fallen. They now represent about 11% of the global total, down from 30% in 1970. These days, U.S. emissions are dwarfed by the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). These are the countries whose leadership will be needed in the decade to come.

 

There are signs that big corporate players are also turning away from their climate pledges. For instance, Blackrock just left the Net Zero Asset Managers coalition. What does this mean?

The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) was announced at COP26 in 2021. It brings together corporate leaders from the financial services sector to support the transition to an ambitious “net-zero” emissions economy. However, after the recent U.S. election, some big U.S. banks left the Net Zero Banking Alliance, which is part of GFANZ. Now, Blackrock has left a similar coalition for asset managers; which is also a part of GFANZ.

This is not good news. It probably marks a symbolic victory for politicians who had been pressuring big corporate interests to step back from their climate pledges. In some ways, it mirrors the recent abandonment by several big American companies of their DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programmes.

At this stage, it is hard to know how much of a genuine impact this will have. For every company trying to appease the Trump administration by backtracking, it is likely there will also be those—like insurance companies—whose profits are being so badly impacted by climate change that they will be unlikely to change their positions.

 

The latest UN climate summit brought no major breakthroughs but it did achieve some modest successes. Credit: Shutterstock.

 

Was COP29 really a failure?

No. Although the latest annual UN climate summit didn’t result in any big breakthroughs, it did achieve some modest successes. For instance, wealthy industrialized nations agreed to increase annual funding for developing countries from US$100 billion to US$300 billion annually by 2030. This is far less than the US$1.3 trillion many experts believe is needed to combat climate change, though that number was included as a goal for 2035. Although US$300 billion is an improvement on the previous amount, it’s not what developing countries were hoping for, which was closer to $500 billion by 2030.

Other outcomes from COP29 include agreement on standards for carbon markets, which means carbon trading is likely to increase and new finances might flow to the Global South. What’s more, several countries announced that they would strengthen their pledges—known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—under the Paris Agreement. These included Azerbaijan, Brazil, the UK, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Shouldn’t COP29 have done a lot more, given the urgency of the climate crisis? As we have noted in an earlier article for IPS (“Are Climate Summits a Waste of Time?”), the UN climate process is designed to help us make incremental progress, year after year, decade after decade.

And it has. It may seem like the pace of change is too slow—and it often is—but the UN has kept the ball moving over many, many years, and can take credit for helping us forward much more than we realize.

 

Isn’t Azerbaijan an oil producer? Why hold meetings on climate change in fossil fuel states?

Yes, it is. In fact, many countries that have hosted the annual UN climate summit in the past have also been fossil fuel states. These include the UAE, UK, Poland, South Africa, India, and Indonesia. In fact, Poland (a major coal producer), has hosted the climate COPs three times!

Why is this? The hosting of the COPs is decided by the relevant regional groupings of the UN. So, each region gets its turn every few years to decide who hosts.

The fact is, many countries produce fossil fuels, and often these are the ones with the financial and organizational capacity to host large events like a UN summit. As we have argued in the past (“Global Cooperation on Climate Change: What Have We Achieved and What Needs to Happen Next?”), we believe hosts should be judged not on their fossil fuel status, but on whether the annual COP they host is a success.

If we judge the hosts by what the UN summits achieve, then fossil fuel countries have a mixed record. COP29 was not a breakout success, but the recent COPs in Egypt and the UAE achieved a surprising breakthrough, with agreement on a loss and damage fund. Also, some of these fossil fuel producers are slowly transitioning their economies away from selling oil, coal and gas. Azerbaijan, for instance, is promoting its tourism sector.

 

Are UN climate COPs still worth holding? Do they need to change?

As mentioned above, we believe UN climate summits are worth it, as they have helped the world make significant progress over the past thirty years. That said, some people think the COPs need to change how they operate. For instance, there were 65,000 people at COP29, but only a few thousand were actually involved in the UN negotiations. Isn’t this a sign something needs to be done differently?

We think the critics miss the point. While it’s true that the UN climate COPs have become large and unwieldy, they also serve many purposes. First, the world pays attention to these mega-events, which ratchet up the political pressure. Prime ministers, presidents, and other world leaders often attend, knowing the eyes of the world are on them. This, too, raises expectations and sometimes leads to better outcomes.

Not only that, but the COPs are often teeming with other folks from every sector and country, all eager to talk about what they are doing, listen to others, and build networks, coalitions, and alliances. Sometimes, these lead to powerful “coalitions of the willing”. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) mentioned earlier is an example of this, as is the Global Methane Pledge, a coalition uniting 159 participating countries (and the European Commission) in pursuit of a goal to cut methane emissions 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030.

On other occasions, participants can generate new ideas that eventually end up in the formal UN negotiations. Recent examples include discussions on agriculture and water management. Currently, it appears as if climate change in the context of oceans and human health may soon be added to the formal discussions.

Of course, the climate COPs could certainly be improved. For instance, the number of formal agenda items could be reduced, since the negotiations are now very complex. However, the UN COPs continue to serve an important function and should, in our opinion, include a wide range of stakeholders.

 

Moisés Savian, Brazil’s Secretary of Land Governance, Territorial and Socio Environmental Development at COP29. He looks forward to COP30 which will be held in his country. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

 

The next COP is taking place in Belém, Brazil in November 2025. What’s on the agenda, and what needs to happen before then?

The road to COP30 in Brazil lies through Bonn, Germany, which is the location for the annual preparatory meeting each June. UN climate watchers will be paying close attention to the two-week session in Bonn to see if we are on track to make any breakthroughs in Brazil.

The key issues where observers would like to see progress at COP30 include:

1. More countries coming to the table with ambitious pledges in the form of stronger NDCs;
2. Evidence that more funding is being mobilized to fight climate change, especially for the Global South;
3. Proof that countries are keeping their current promises under the Paris Agreement, or that they are at least taking steps to close any gaps;
4. Progress on using Nature-Based Solutions like forest restoration and sustainable land management; and,
5. Stronger private sector engagement, including avoiding any backsliding from major companies, and in particular from the financial sector.

We would also like to see evidence at COP30 that the recently-created Loss and Damage Fund is starting to have an impact, and that the role of oceans in climate change mitigation and adaptation is being taken more seriously.

 

Even though the situation is bad, is there still hope?

Yes. Despite the recent bad news, we remain optimistic. History shows we have made positive strides already. We are convinced now is the time to double down on global, collaborative efforts to combat climate change, and that the UN COPs provide important, regular milestones to meet, review our progress, and strengthen our pledges.

One piece of good news lost among all the big, bad headlines relates to the leadership at COP30. Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago has been chosen as president of COP30. He played a significant role in the Rio+20 negotiations and has been one of Brazil’s top civil servants for many years. His expertise when it comes to climate change and COPs is impressive. The appointment of such a consummate professional is a positive sign of how seriously the Brazilian government is taking its responsibilities as the COP30 host.

 

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022). Their next book, Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, is due for release in June 2025.

The United Nations declared 2025 as the International Year of Glaciers’ Preservation to promote awareness about the role of glaciers, snow and ice. The climate system and global hydrological cycle are dependent on accumulated water in solid form as glaciers, snow and ice. Because of the global temperature rise and its impact on the Earth’s […]

Sigrid Kaag, Senior Humanitarian and Reconstruction Coordinator for Gaza, briefs the Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question. Credit: UN Photo

By Dawn Clancy
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 31 2025 (IPS)

Before the three-phased ceasefire deal—proposed by President Joe Biden and dragged over the finish line by the then-incoming Donald Trump administration—silenced the bombs and drones over Gaza and allowed for humanitarian aid to flow into the strip, there was United Nations Security Council Resolution 2720.

Adopted on December 22, 2023, and tabled by the United Arab Emirates, the resolution was created to streamline and accelerate the delivery and distribution of much-needed humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza. However, critics of the resolution say that a lack of political will and cooperation from the Israeli government and COGAT, the aid coordination arm of Israel’s military—identified by UN bodies and aid organizations on the ground in Gaza as the primary obstruction to aid delivery and distribution—paralyzed the implementation of the resolution’s mandate, unnecessarily prolonging the suffering of Palestinian civilians in the battered and bloodied enclave.

COGAT did not respond to a request for comment.

The resolution also tasked Secretary-General António Guterres to appoint a senior humanitarian and reconstruction coordinator to expedite the mandate and to “establish a UN mechanism for accelerating the provision of humanitarian relief.” For that role, he chose Sigrid Kaag of the Netherlands. She officially started the job on January 8, 2024.

“There are thousands of trucks [with humanitarian aid] trying and failing” to enter Gaza, said Lana Nusseibeh, the UAE’s ambassador to the UN, in her remarks to the Council before the vote in December 2023. “Unless we take drastic action, there will be famine in Gaza.” The situation for Palestinians, she added, is “desperate” and “unbearable.”

In the name of self-defense and security, Israeli Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Jonathan Miller, told Council members after resolution 2720 was adopted that Israel “will not change” its approach to the delivery and distribution of aid. In stark contrast to Nusseibeh’s warning of a looming famine in the strip, Miller said, “Hundreds of truckloads of aid enter Gaza every day… the only roadblock for aid entry is the UN’s ability to accept them.”

But Kaag chipped away at Miller’s claim in her first public briefing to the Security Council on April 24, 2024—her first official briefing was a closed session with Security Council members on January 30, 2024—which followed an Israeli airstrike on a World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid convoy in Gaza that killed seven aid workers on April 1.

Notably, before the WCK strike, leadership at the highest levels of the UN recognized the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza. Secretary-General Guterres described the humanitarian situation as “appalling.” And Martin Griffiths, the former UN relief chief, told the Security Council that “providing humanitarian assistance across Gaza is almost impossible.”

Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees International, in a televised interview, called out Israel for “actively blocking humanitarian groups” from getting into northern and southern Gaza. “What we need to see is the opening of border crossings,” said Konyndyk. “We need to see Israel doing much more to facilitate humanitarian action.”

Meanwhile, the “tragic” and unintentional WCK military strike—as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described it in a video statement—drew heaps of condemnation and criticism from the international community, prompting Netanyahu, after a call with Biden, to make commitments to improve Israel’s approach to humanitarian aid in Gaza, which Kaag noted in her remarks on April 24. Some of these steps included an increase in the volume of aid crossing into Gaza, the temporary opening of the Erez crossing and the opening of Ashdod port for humanitarian goods.

“There’s still a lot of work to be done,” Kaag told reporters after the council meeting. She added that her mandate “requires the full cooperation of the Israeli authorities.”

However, three months after the WCK military strike, on July 29, 2024, while briefing reporters at UN headquarters in New York from Amman, Jordan, Kaag, who had just returned from a trip to Gaza, described the situation as “absolutely catastrophic” and the level of destruction as “almost incomprehensible.” When Kaag returned to New York to brief the Council on September 16, her assessment grew darker.

“Effective humanitarian operations require the right quality, quantity and a broad range of goods to meet the daily needs of civilians in Gaza. That goal is not being met.” She added that the breakdown of law and order and looting of supplies “are additional significant impediments to the UN operations in Gaza. “The operating conditions for humanitarian workers include denials, delays, a lack of safety and security and poor logistical infrastructure. This continues to hamper relief operations,” she said.

Contrary to Kaag’s briefing, Danny Danon, Israeli Ambassador to the UN, in his remarks to the council, described Israel’s humanitarian efforts as “unparalleled” for a country that was forced to go to war.

“We have gone above and beyond our obligations, aiming to improve the well-being of a civilian population embedded within the enemy,” he said. Less than a month later, on October 6, 2024, the Israeli military laid siege to north Gaza, complicating Resolution 2720’s mandate by prohibiting aid deliveries, including food and other essential supplies and trapping upwards of 65,000 Palestinians.

“We have been collectively killing ourselves to establish systems, negotiate, to get dual-use items in, to assist children that are deaf, to get their hearing aids… we’ve established the systems, the teams, the mechanism, the database, we’ve organized the suppliers,” Kaag told reporters in New York on December 10, 2024. “But there’s no substitute for political will. You can’t “ask humanitarians to do more.”

On January 17, 2025, the UN’s press office announced the temporary appointment of Kaag as special coordinator for the Middle East peace process. According to the statement, her new role “will be concurrent” with her present mandate as Gaza’s senior humanitarian and reconstruction coordinator.

Notably, as Kaag worked to implement her mandate to increase and streamline aid into the Gaza Strip, the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—the judicial body of the United Nations—ordered Israel on January 26, 2024, to take steps to prevent genocide in Gaza, including taking all measures within its power to provide adequate access to food, water, fuel, shelter and medical supplies to civilians in Gaza. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) issued reports of imminent famine in Gaza. Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report that detailed how Israeli authorities have “deliberately obstructed Palestinians’ access to the adequate amount of water required for survival.”

Amnesty International published a report on December 5, 2024, concluding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza by “failing to facilitate meaningful access within Gaza so others, particularly humanitarian organizations, could deliver essential services and life-saving supplies.” And on November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and the “war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.”

Additionally, a recent ProPublica investigation revealed that two humanitarian agencies within the US government had concluded last spring that “Israel had deliberately blocked deliveries of food and medicine into Gaza.” The investigation claims that former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken rejected the agency’s findings.

Despite multiple attempts by IPS to interview a variety of humanitarian aid organizations on the implementation of resolution 2720 and its impact on the ground in Gaza—including whether Kaag has effectively executed her ongoing mandate and whether Israel played a primarily obstructive role in the process—some, due to the issue’s sensitivity, declined to speak on the record.

A spokesperson for Islamic Relief did, however, provide IPS with an email statement.

“UN resolution 2720 did not deliver on its mandate to get more humanitarian aid to people in Gaza. It should have led to a massive surge in aid, but instead the amount of aid getting into Gaza decreased even further. Israel has continued to use starvation and denial of aid as a weapon of war, violating international law and UN resolutions with complete impunity.”

A series of humanitarian access snapshot reports published by a group of international humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza also provides insight into the challenges aid workers face despite what Security Council Resolution 2020 has tried to accomplish. These include, according to available snapshots, denials and delays in the delivery of food, medical and building supplies, forced displacement of humanitarian staff and multiple incidents of the Israeli military targeting areas close to aid distribution sites.

After 15 months of war, President Biden, alongside the Trump administration, announced a three-phased ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, the armed group that attacked Israel on October 7, 2023. The deal’s first phase, which began on January 19, called for a surge in humanitarian aid to Gaza.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has reported that through “interactions with the Israeli authorities and the guarantors for the ceasefire deal,” 915 aid trucks crossed into the Gaza Strip on Monday, January 20, and 897 entered on Tuesday. OCHA estimates that a daily average of 76 trucks carrying humanitarian aid entered Gaza in December 2024. Currently, the flow of aid into Gaza and other critical supplies continues as the ceasefire appears to be holding. It updates humanitarian aid daily.

Still, the uptick in trucks entering Gaza, notably more than the 600 a day stipulated in the ceasefire agreement, has some wondering why aid has been so severely obstructed for the last 15 months.

“You can make the argument that it was more difficult to deliver supplies during Israel’s military campaign than it is during a ceasefire,” said Mouin Rabbani, a nonresident fellow at the Center for Conflict and Humanitarian Studies. However, he added that the sudden surge in aid “shows that there was a decision, a policy to starve the Gaza Strip.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Seeds of Resilience Despite Massive Destruction in Gaza
• Will the UN’s Pact of The Future Modernize the World’s Outdated Multilateral Systems?

By External Source
Jan 31 2025 (IPS-Partners)

 
George the Pinta Island tortoise and Martha the passenger pigeon achieved fame as ‘endlings’ – the last individuals of their species. Their passing is tragic, but can their fate perhaps help us to protect other threatened species?

In this final episode of Season 4, Brit interviews Dr. Alexander Lees, from Manchester University in the UK, who has been working on Amazonian conservation issues for more than 20 years and has a particular interest in birdlife. Brit also hears from Joanna Lilley, a poet who uses verse to capture the beauty and tragedy of endlings.

To find out more about IPBES, head to www.ipbes.net or follow us on social media @IPBES.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Jan 31 2025 (IPS)

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO) – a move experts say makes the U.S. and other countries less safe from infectious diseases and other public-health threats. It might thus be opportune to return to the global COVID 19 pandemic. Has the threat really gone away? Can something similar not erupt again?

Around the world, numerous scientific institutions store and experiment with deadly microbes and viruses. This is done for the benefit of humanity, but it might also have more macabre aspects. It has happened that deadly material leaked from laboratories; perhaps not too often, but the risk is always there. On 2 April, 1979, the city of Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg), at the time with a population of over a million, was struck by an accidental release of anthrax bacteria, which officially killed at least 68 people (as in similar cases, this figure is likely to be a low estimate). Nevertheless, Soviet/Russian research on the development of chemical and biological weapons continued and, evidently, still does. The use of the radioactive nerve agent Novichok has drawn significant attention. Developed between 1971 and 1993, Novichok has reportedly been used on several occasions to poison and kill Russian dissidents.

A great amount of material from the infamous Japanese Unit 731 was after World War II brought to both the Soviet Union and the U.S. In the USSR it became the basis for the development of the Sverdlovsk facilities and in the U.S. it were brought to the Army Biological Warfare Laboratories at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland, where it, just as in the USSR, were further developed. Strangely enough, the facilities at Fort Detrick were shut down in August 2019, only three months before the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 were reported from China. The reason for the closure was cited as “a risk of severe threats to public, animal, or plant health, as well as animal or plant products.” No further details were provided.

Unit 731 was a secret biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army, where horrific human experimentation occurred – no one survived these experiments, which nevertheless was meticulously recorded by the researchers who performed them, leaving behind a vast documentation. Between 1936 and 1945, approximately 14,000 victims were murdered in Unit 731, established in occupied Manchuria, while at least 300,000 individuals died due to infectious illnesses originating from Unit 731 and spread across China.

So, what is currently happening within intensely guarded and well protected microbiological facilities around the world? First and foremost, vaccines and drugs are being developed to eradicate and cure a variety of often life-threatening diseases. However, like all research, this can also have its downsides. Ron Fouchier is known for his research on respiratory viruses; how they can mutate, and through zoonosis spread from animals to humans. His research is also evidence of how viruses and microbes can be manipulated and altered within a laboratory environment. In 2003, at the annual meeting of the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza, assembled microbiologists listened as Fouchier described how he had transferred avian (bird) influenza from one animal to another, thus making the virus significantly more contagious.

He mutated the genetic sequence of the avian virus in many different ways, until, as he later put it, “someone convinced me to do something really, really stupid.” He spread the virus by allowing it to mutate in the nose of a ferret and then implanted the animal’s nasal fluid into the nose of another ferret. After ten such manipulations, from one ferret to another, the virus spread by itself among the animals and within a few days killed most of them. Fouchier found five new mutations of the virus and then managed to combine them into a single super-virus, turning out to be far more deadly than the original avian virus. He had thus achieved something that could probably happen in nature, where a virus mutates when transferred from one animal to another and thus become increasingly deadly. What happens in nature can be done much faster and more efficiently in a laboratory. Fouchier’s virus is now securely stored in an underground facility in Rotterdam.

China is the country that so far suffered the most from biological warfare. When Unit 731 had been destroyed and some of its researchers captured by Russians and Americans, the Chinese might not have had much interest, or time, to focus on the scientific results of the Japanese Biological – and Chemical warfare programmes. The country was torn apart by violent fighting between Chiang Kai-shek’s republican forces and Mao Zedong’s communists. However, there were branches of Unit 731 in Chinese-controlled areas. Unit 731’s largest auxiliary facilities had been established in Beijing, Nanjing, and Guangzhou, and it is likely that Chinese forces succeeded in securing some of the material from these installations

After the war and the Communists’ victory, the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ facilities in Beijing became the centre for the country’s microbiological research and branches were soon established throughout China. Wuhan’s microbiological laboratory was founded in 1956 and initially focused on research concerning zoonotic transmission of viral diseases.

The so-called Hong Kong flu struck China in the summer of 1968 and spread to Hong Kong, where half a million people fell ill, and after the disease had spread worldwide more than a million people died. This served as a warning for the Chinese authorities, who, despite the general chaos reigning in the country, discreetly began cooperating with international epidemiologists. This cooperation deepened over the years. Wuhan’s laboratory developed an intimate collaboration and exchange with researchers from Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas, Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory, and Centre international de recherche en infectiologie in Lyon, France.

The SARS virus, a group to which the deadly coronavirus belongs, first appeared in November 2002, causing a relatively mild epidemic, with about 8,500 cases, of which 800 died. It was a group of researchers from Wuhan’s Institute of Virology who found that China’s horseshoe bats were natural reservoirs for the SARS-like coronavirus. Wuhan’s researchers collected samples from thousands of horseshoe bats across China and isolated over 300 bat coronavirus sequences. In 2015, an international team, including two researchers from the Wuhan Institute, published their research results concerning the probability that a bat’s coronavirus could infect a human cell line. They had constructed a hybrid virus by combining a bat coronavirus with a SARS virus, which was then adapted to grow in mice and subsequently replicate human diseases. It was found that this hybrid virus could infect human cells.

We are still stuck with the question – where did SARS-CoV-2 originate? Can it be traced all the way back to Unit 731? Probably not. Did it come from a bat? It is very possible. Did it leak from Wuhan’s Institute of Virology? This continues to be an open question. The prestigious British scientific weekly journal Nature, stated in 4 December 2024 that most researchers now agree that SARS-CoV-2 finds its origins in animals. However, since the virus’ definitive origin has not yet been traced to any animal, some researchers continue to claim that the virus may have been developed in and then leaked – either by accident or intentionally – from Wuhan’s Institute of Virology.

In August of the same year, an editorial in the equally prestigious British medical journal The Lancet did in its monthly issue Lancet Microbe call for an end to all unscientific conspiracy theories about the virus leaking from Wuhan’s research laboratory, stating that “SARS-CoV-2 is a natural virus that found its way into humans through mundane contact with infected wildlife that went on to cause the most consequential pandemic for over a century. While it is scholarly to entertain alternative hypotheses, particularly when evidence is scarce, alternative hypotheses have been implausible for a long time and have only become more-so with increasing scrutiny. Those who eagerly peddle suggestions of laboratory involvement have consistently failed to present credible arguments to support their positions.”

The Lancet’s editorial writer continued to state that zealous attacks from amateurs might intimidate and even scare scientists, who are trying to objectively pursue their research.

“A worrying potential consequence of this saga is that it might have a chilling effect on the pursuit of answers in the future on both COVID-19 and new potential threats. With researchers unwilling to ask questions freely for fear of being persecuted when facts lead to inevitable refinement or revision of earlier conclusions.”

Accordingly, we have to let science continue to work undisturbed, though under supervision. However, this does not mean that we have to yield to unfounded conspiracy theories and leave global scientific cooperation. By leaving WHO, the U.S. is taking a first step on a dangerous road. This becomes even more worrisome while considering President Trump’s decision to nominate Robert F Kennedy Jr, a man without medical expertise and prone to believe in conspiracy theories, to become U.S. health secretary, overseeing everything from medical research to food safety and public welfare programmes. One of the mandates Trump will provide Kennedy with is to remove “corruption” from health agencies, whatever he might mean by that?

Main sources: Harris, Sheldon H. (2002) Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare 1932-1945, and The American Cover-up. New York: Routledge, and Specter, Michael (2012) “The deadliest Virus”, The New Yorker, March 4.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Credit: Hivos. EU SEE

By Sarah Strack
JOHANNESBURG, Jan 31 2025 (IPS)

Across the world, civil society faces increasing pressure—from restrictive laws on civil society operations to digital surveillance, funding restrictions, and direct attacks on human rights defenders. In response, a global civil society coalition is stepping up. The newly launched European Union System for an Enabling Environment for Civil Society (EU SEE) spans 86 countries, equipping civil society actors, governments and other stakeholders with the data, tools, and resources needed to anticipate and respond in real time to shifts in the enabling environment—ensuring that civil society can thrive, freely express itself, and actively shape its context.

From Paraguay to Uganda, Indonesia to Botswana and Pakistan, the latest reports from civil society organisations paint a sobering picture of deteriorating operational environment and growing restrictions.

• In Paraguay, new legislation imposes excessive bureaucratic hurdles on CSOs, while 78% of citizens feel unrepresented in parliament and 84% believe elections are fraudulent.
• In Uganda, ahead of the 2026 elections, journalists and activists face increasing state repression, with the government using digital surveillance laws to stifle dissent.
• In Pakistan, authorities have blocked access to independent media, used the military court system to sentence 60 civilians, and restricted funding for NGOs deemed critical of the government.
• In Indonesia, anti-NGO rhetoric is rising, restrictive funding laws limit CSO resources, and police continue to suppress public protests.
• In Botswana, despite constitutional guarantees of free expression, civil society actors advocating for democratic reforms face harassment, and restrictive assembly laws limit peaceful protests.
• In Pakistan the not-for-profit status of NGOs has been withdrawn and now every income of NGOs even under grants from global charities is taxable unless the NGO applies for tax exemption and gets it approved every year. This process has opened new ways of corruption for Federal Bureau of Revenue Authorities. Local and national charities are also facing immense challenges to open their bank accounts. One of the Bank Manager in Balochistan province of Pakistan said “NGO Bank accounts are punishment for us”.

“Pakistani NGOs face immense challenges, not only from state-led systemic and structural barriers but also from social and cultural norms. We are constantly walking a double-edged sword to fight for our fundamental freedoms,” says Zia ur Rehman, Chair of the Pakistan Development Alliance, which is enhancing the Pakistan Civic Space Monitor through the EU SEE initiative.

This is a moment of reckoning for civil society. We cannot afford to wait for the grip to be tightened on civic freedoms and civil society’s environment. As we face multiple challenges and common struggles, no single organisation or sector can confront these issues alone. Now is the time to come together and build a diverse global coalition of defenders for civil society—a “united front” that harnesses data, innovation, and collaboration to protect and sustain an enabling environment for civil society worldwide.

As Intan Bedisa of the International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (Infid) explains, “In many countries, the escalating issue of shrinking space for civil society organisations has arisen. EU SEE will be assisting civil society in both preventing and proactively addressing legal and policy changes that might affect civil society operations. This effort will include a series of actions, such as national-level monitoring, which will generate early warnings to provide timely support to those in need.”

Yet generating data alone is not enough—collective influence, and support from policymakers, donors, and the public are also needed to turn these insights into meaningful change.

Creating an enabling environment for civil society involves shifting laws, social attitudes, and resources that not only protect fundamental freedoms but actively facilitate civil society’s ability to operate effectively and sustainably. Within such an environment, civil society can engage in political and public life without fear of reprisals, openly express its views, and actively participate in shaping its context.

Country-specific insights on these dimensions can drive evidence-based advocacy, shape policy discussions, support civil society organisations refine their strategies, access flexible financial support mechanisms, and build solidarity networks at national, regional, and global levels.

“A vibrant and free civil society provides the very foundation from which we can address the world’s most pressing challenges,” says Mandeep Tiwana, interim co-Secretary General at CIVICUS. “Civil society is the heartbeat of democracy, the voice of the marginalised, and the catalyst for social justice. We must defend it with unwavering resolve.”

Policymakers, too, must rise to the challenge. The data and trends highlighted by monitoring systems like EU SEE serve as a springboard for governments to enact policies that protect and nurture civil society. This means committing to international frameworks that uphold freedom of expression, halting internet shutdowns, fight disinformation campaigns, surveillance abuses, and ultimately build accountability and support action.

International institutions and donors must align their funding and diplomatic efforts with the pressing needs identified by civil society monitoring initiatives. Funders must prioritise flexible, long-term support for civil society, ensuring organisations have the resources to resist crackdowns.

At the same time data and follow-up actions can be used by the media to uncover patterns of repression, highlight emerging threats and opportunities, and keep the microphone on at national and global levels – bringing these issues to the forefront of public discourse.

For those believing in the power of civil society, the choice before us is clear: either stand by as enabling environments deteriorate—whether in your own country or elsewhere—or take collective action. By leveraging data and closely examining global trends, let’s act together to push back against repression and build a world where civil society not only survives but thrives.

The EU System for an Enabling Environment for Civil Society (EU SEE) is a consortium of international organisations and Network Members. The civil society organisations that form this global partnership have a wealth of experience monitoring, protecting and strengthening the conditions that enable civil society to thrive. The initiative is implemented by: CIVICUS, Democracy Reporting International, European Partnership for Democracy, Forus, Hivos and Transparency International.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

Sarah Strack is Forus Director

Families begin their journey back home from the south of Gaza to Gaza City and the northern areas. 30 January 2025. Credit: UNICEF/Eyad El Baba

By James E. Jennings
ATLANTA, USA, Jan 31 2025 (IPS)

Either the new US President, Mr. Trump, is ignorant of international law or thinks he’s so brilliant that he doesn’t care about it. Either way, he seems to have stumbled into proposing an extension of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s clearly documented crime of genocide by suggesting that somebody “clear out” the people in Gaza, in effect advocating the ethnic cleansing of the territory.

Ethnic cleansing violates international humanitarian law. It is a crime against humanity and constitutes a war crime. It is also listed as part of the supreme international crime of genocide. Population transfers such as “Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” is one of the elements defining genocide.

The UN adopted the Genocide Convention 1948 and it went into effect in 1951. Among the punishable offenses are “acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

Crimes punishable under the convention include “Conspiracy to commit genocide,” “Public advocacy to commit genocide“ and “attempt to commit genocide.” You don’t actually have to kill someone yourself, or directly order someone to do it.

On a plain reading of the convention, by publicly advocating that 1.5 million Palestinians should be transferred to Jordan or Egypt, Trump has already crossed the line of advocacy. If forcible transfers should actually happen, he is prima facie complicit.

Egyptian President al-Sisi and Jordan’s King Abdullah both announced opposition to the idea of sending the Palestinians to their territory. The King said that Jordan would not participate in such a plan, and President al-Sisi proclaimed that Egypt would not be part of an “unjust” solution.

They might have said, “Don’t you realize, you idiot, that you are advocating one of the key elements of genocide—transferring people, especially children. from one group to another group?”

According to the Genocide Convention, “conspiring to commit” genocide and “publicly advocating” genocide are equally punishable under international law as the crime itself. Genocide, which involves proving intent, is a high threshold to meet in court, but ethnic cleansing requires only that the crime be documented as having happened.

Mr. Netanyahu, who can only be pleased that the supposedly most powerful person in the world is doing his bidding, is already under indictment for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court, which has now issued arrest warrants for him.

Why doesn’t somebody just ask the Palestinians if they want to leave and where they want to go? Most have proclaimed for more than 75 years that they want to go back to their original homes in Palestine (now Southern Israel) that they were forced out of by Israeli troops in 1948.

If not that, most have said they want to rebuild Gaza and stay there, as difficult and nearly impossible as that prospect is. Gazans have pride in their heritage and homeland, and are firm in their belief in sumud in Arabic—“steadfastness.” They refuse to give up the dream of a national homeland of their own in Palestine.

The reality of what they face in a 90% destroyed environment is daunting in the extreme. Humanitarian aid is urgently needed, and will be for the foreseeable future. However, every person has the right to make choices about where they want to live.

No would-be dictator like America’s chief executive can decide their future for them.

James E. Jennings PhD is President of Conscience International and a longtime advocate for Palestinian Human and Civil Rights.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

A mother and her children are seen wading through a cloud of smoke at the Dandora dumpsite, Kenya's largest open landfill. Credit: Jackson Okata/IPS

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
SAN FRANCISCO, California / APEX, North Carolina, Jan 30 2025 (IPS)

When it comes to climate change, the awful news has been coming thick and fast. We now know that in 2024, the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time.

Extreme weather seems to be multiplying, with shocking fires in Los Angeles and storms striking Europe and America’s east coast since the start of the year. U.S. President Donald Trump has announced his country will turn its back on the ambitious Paris Agreement adopted in 2015.

Meanwhile, the United Nations’ latest annual summit—COP29 in Azerbaijan—ended in November with complaints it had done too little to change the narrative. Some even questioned whether the UN’s ongoing exertions were a waste of time, and whether annual global climate summits were still worth doing?

Are things really so bad? Let’s break down the news piece-by-piece and look at each issue in turn.

 

How bad is it that we have broken the 1.5C ceiling?

It’s pretty bad. It means we can expect extreme weather like heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, and flooding to increase in frequency and severity. It’s also going to affect food production, harm many plant and animal species, and risk sending the world over several “tipping points”, such as faster melting of ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, and elsewhere, causing sea-level rise. If you don’t like that our weather is getting more extreme, then sadly it’s too late. We’ll all have to get used to it, and adapt accordingly.

One piece of good news lost among all the big, bad headlines relates to the leadership at COP30. Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago has been chosen as president of COP30. He played a significant role in the Rio+20 negotiations and has been one of Brazil’s top civil servants for many years. His expertise when it comes to climate change and COPs is impressive

That said, it’s not all doom and gloom. There are some silver linings. First, the world has actually been doing a lot to fight back. Partly prompted by major international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, countries have been actively finding ways to reduce emissions, such as investing in green technologies and working on new policies that affect pretty much everything we do.

Whether it’s new energy efficiency programmes in our homes and offices, efforts to protect our forests, or the rise in hybrid and electric vehicles, a lot is happening. Perhaps the biggest transformation has been the growth of solar and wind power, which is now considerably cheaper and more efficient that earlier sources of electricity like coal or natural gas. The pay-off is clear, with countries like the UK, Sweden, and Denmark already cutting their greenhouse gas emissions in half since the 1990s.

Another silver lining of our efforts to cut emissions is expert projections for temperature rise in the longer term. Before the Paris Agreement, some were predicting temperatures to go up by 4-6C by 2100, which would be catastrophic for humanity and the planet; an extinction event for modern civilization. Now, the estimates sit around 2-2.8C, depending on whether countries honour the goals they’ve set themselves. These numbers are still bad, but nowhere near as terrifying as they were.

So yes, 1.5 is bad and we will need to redouble our efforts to make sure it doesn’t get much worse. But we shouldn’t give up hope just yet.

 

What does President Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Agreement mean?

No one can deny that U.S. leadership greatly helps our global efforts to combat climate change.

Still, there are several reasons why we shouldn’t panic. First, as mentioned above, the world is already on a long-term path to cut emissions. The new U.S. administration may wish to “drill, baby, drill,” but renewables will continue to rise. Why? Because they’re cheaper than the alternatives. As an experienced business leader, President Trump knows as well as anyone that companies are motivated by profits. They will look for the most cost-effective energy option. In many cases, this will mean renewable energy.

Secondly, even if the U.S. does leave Paris and change its domestic policies, there is an inertia in systems. The outgoing Biden administration, which had pledged $3 billion for the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF), has already handed over $2 billion. They’ve also spent much larger amounts on supporting the U.S. transition to a green economy. This is money the new President will not be able to take back. Plus, a country as big and powerful as America can’t turn its entire economy around overnight. For instance, during President Trump’s first term, emissions in the U.S. continued to fall, even if he himself did not support this.

Thirdly, even American presidents aren’t all powerful. There are many other interests and alternative viewpoints in the U.S. Others who might disagree with President Trump will likely step up and try to fill the gap. For instance, business leader Michael Bloomberg has just announced that he will help cover U.S. financial obligations to the UN and its climate work. There is precedent for this, too. Back in the 2000s, a lot of progress was made on climate change at the state and city level throughout the U.S., even though President George W. Bush generally didn’t support it.

Finally, there has been a shift in the centre of gravity when it comes to climate change. The U.S. remains important, but on climate change it matters less than it once did. Under Presidents Obama, Biden, and Trump himself, U.S. emissions have fallen. They now represent about 11% of the global total, down from 30% in 1970. These days, U.S. emissions are dwarfed by the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). These are the countries whose leadership will be needed in the decade to come.

 

There are signs that big corporate players are also turning away from their climate pledges. For instance, Blackrock just left the Net Zero Asset Managers coalition. What does this mean?

The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) was announced at COP26 in 2021. It brings together corporate leaders from the financial services sector to support the transition to an ambitious “net-zero” emissions economy. However, after the recent U.S. election, some big U.S. banks left the Net Zero Banking Alliance, which is part of GFANZ. Now, Blackrock has left a similar coalition for asset managers; which is also a part of GFANZ.

This is not good news. It probably marks a symbolic victory for politicians who had been pressuring big corporate interests to step back from their climate pledges. In some ways, it mirrors the recent abandonment by several big American companies of their DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programmes.

At this stage, it is hard to know how much of a genuine impact this will have. For every company trying to appease the Trump administration by backtracking, it is likely there will also be those—like insurance companies—whose profits are being so badly impacted by climate change that they will be unlikely to change their positions.

 

The latest UN climate summit brought no major breakthroughs but it did achieve some modest successes. Credit: Shutterstock.

 

Was COP29 really a failure?

No. Although the latest annual UN climate summit didn’t result in any big breakthroughs, it did achieve some modest successes. For instance, wealthy industrialized nations agreed to increase annual funding for developing countries from US$100 billion to US$300 billion annually by 2030. This is far less than the US$1.3 trillion many experts believe is needed to combat climate change, though that number was included as a goal for 2035. Although US$300 billion is an improvement on the previous amount, it’s not what developing countries were hoping for, which was closer to $500 billion by 2030.

Other outcomes from COP29 include agreement on standards for carbon markets, which means carbon trading is likely to increase and new finances might flow to the Global South. What’s more, several countries announced that they would strengthen their pledges—known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—under the Paris Agreement. These included Azerbaijan, Brazil, the UK, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Shouldn’t COP29 have done a lot more, given the urgency of the climate crisis? As we have noted in an earlier article for IPS (“Are Climate Summits a Waste of Time?”), the UN climate process is designed to help us make incremental progress, year after year, decade after decade.

And it has. It may seem like the pace of change is too slow—and it often is—but the UN has kept the ball moving over many, many years, and can take credit for helping us forward much more than we realize.

 

Isn’t Azerbaijan an oil producer? Why hold meetings on climate change in fossil fuel states?

Yes, it is. In fact, many countries that have hosted the annual UN climate summit in the past have also been fossil fuel states. These include the UAE, UK, Poland, South Africa, India, and Indonesia. In fact, Poland (a major coal producer), has hosted the climate COPs three times!

Why is this? The hosting of the COPs is decided by the relevant regional groupings of the UN. So, each region gets its turn every few years to decide who hosts.

The fact is, many countries produce fossil fuels, and often these are the ones with the financial and organizational capacity to host large events like a UN summit. As we have argued in the past (“Global Cooperation on Climate Change: What Have We Achieved and What Needs to Happen Next?”), we believe hosts should be judged not on their fossil fuel status, but on whether the annual COP they host is a success.

If we judge the hosts by what the UN summits achieve, then fossil fuel countries have a mixed record. COP29 was not a breakout success, but the recent COPs in Egypt and the UAE achieved a surprising breakthrough, with agreement on a loss and damage fund. Also, some of these fossil fuel producers are slowly transitioning their economies away from selling oil, coal and gas. Azerbaijan, for instance, is promoting its tourism sector.

 

Are UN climate COPs still worth holding? Do they need to change?

As mentioned above, we believe UN climate summits are worth it, as they have helped the world make significant progress over the past thirty years. That said, some people think the COPs need to change how they operate. For instance, there were 65,000 people at COP29, but only a few thousand were actually involved in the UN negotiations. Isn’t this a sign something needs to be done differently?

We think the critics miss the point. While it’s true that the UN climate COPs have become large and unwieldy, they also serve many purposes. First, the world pays attention to these mega-events, which ratchet up the political pressure. Prime ministers, presidents, and other world leaders often attend, knowing the eyes of the world are on them. This, too, raises expectations and sometimes leads to better outcomes.

Not only that, but the COPs are often teeming with other folks from every sector and country, all eager to talk about what they are doing, listen to others, and build networks, coalitions, and alliances. Sometimes, these lead to powerful “coalitions of the willing”. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) mentioned earlier is an example of this, as is the Global Methane Pledge, a coalition uniting 159 participating countries (and the European Commission) in pursuit of a goal to cut methane emissions 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030.

On other occasions, participants can generate new ideas that eventually end up in the formal UN negotiations. Recent examples include discussions on agriculture and water management. Currently, it appears as if climate change in the context of oceans and human health may soon be added to the formal discussions.

Of course, the climate COPs could certainly be improved. For instance, the number of formal agenda items could be reduced, since the negotiations are now very complex. However, the UN COPs continue to serve an important function and should, in our opinion, include a wide range of stakeholders.

 

Moisés Savian, Brazil’s Secretary of Land Governance, Territorial and Socio Environmental Development at COP29. He looks forward to COP30 which will be held in his country. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

 

The next COP is taking place in Belém, Brazil in November 2025. What’s on the agenda, and what needs to happen before then?

The road to COP30 in Brazil lies through Bonn, Germany, which is the location for the annual preparatory meeting each June. UN climate watchers will be paying close attention to the two-week session in Bonn to see if we are on track to make any breakthroughs in Brazil.

The key issues where observers would like to see progress at COP30 include:

1. More countries coming to the table with ambitious pledges in the form of stronger NDCs;
2. Evidence that more funding is being mobilized to fight climate change, especially for the Global South;
3. Proof that countries are keeping their current promises under the Paris Agreement, or that they are at least taking steps to close any gaps;
4. Progress on using Nature-Based Solutions like forest restoration and sustainable land management; and,
5. Stronger private sector engagement, including avoiding any backsliding from major companies, and in particular from the financial sector.

We would also like to see evidence at COP30 that the recently-created Loss and Damage Fund is starting to have an impact, and that the role of oceans in climate change mitigation and adaptation is being taken more seriously.

 

Even though the situation is bad, is there still hope?

Yes. Despite the recent bad news, we remain optimistic. History shows we have made positive strides already. We are convinced now is the time to double down on global, collaborative efforts to combat climate change, and that the UN COPs provide important, regular milestones to meet, review our progress, and strengthen our pledges.

One piece of good news lost among all the big, bad headlines relates to the leadership at COP30. Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago has been chosen as president of COP30. He played a significant role in the Rio+20 negotiations and has been one of Brazil’s top civil servants for many years. His expertise when it comes to climate change and COPs is impressive. The appointment of such a consummate professional is a positive sign of how seriously the Brazilian government is taking its responsibilities as the COP30 host.

 

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022). Their next book, Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, is due for release in June 2025.

 

Excerpt:

With so much bad news about climate change lately, is it too late for the world to tackle the problem? Professor Felix Dodds and Chris Spence review the current state-of-play.